TD 878 
.7 
























S? ‘° H »<*«>\* 

*. /^V/)>,'<x V <£" 


3* J \ %^ w , 

7^rn£*<' y*Sk*X V 

; ?»sli@,» W ‘.Sw 1 : W qy 

k i-, ' 



,'V 

\<f\' 




-Tz- . ft * > V-v 


ta 


*W 


,.°V^ * v 






l! * O 


'A % o 








Xr 




f/EPA 


United States 
Environmental Protection 
Agency 


Office of Research and 
Development 
Washington DC 20460 




Geotech, Inc. 

Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification 
System 


Innovative Technology 
Evaluation Report 































EPA/540/R-97/506 
December 1999 


Geotech, Inc. 

Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System 


Innovative Technology Evaluation Report 


National Risk Management Research Laboratory 
Office of Research and Development 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 


Printed on Recycled Paper 


NOTICE 


The information in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program under Contract No. 68-C5-0037. 
This document has been subjected to EPA's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for 
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an 
endorsement or recommendation for use. 


,ov 


AC 


& 


A 




0 - 


LC Control Number 



FOREWORD 


I he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's 
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to 
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the 
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet these mandates, EPA's research program is 
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science 
know ledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect 
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the EPA center for investigation of 
technical and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the 
environment. The focus of the NRMRL research program is on methods for the prevention and control 
of pollution to air, land, w ater, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water 
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air 
pollution. The goals of this research effort are to catalyze development and implementation of 
innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information 
needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information 
transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies. 

This publication has been produced as part of the NRMRL strategic, long-term research plan. It is 
published and made available by the EPA Office of Research and Development to assist the user 
community and to link researchers with their clients. 

E. Timothy Oppelt, Director 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 


in 















































ABSTRACT 


A Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) technology demonstration was conducted in 
February and March 1997 to evaluate the potential applicability and effectiveness of the Geotech 
Development Corporation (Geotech) Cold Top ex-situ vitrification technology on chromium- 
contaminated soils. The demonstration was conducted using the vitrification furnace at Geotech’s pilot 
plant in Niagara Falls, New York. 

Chromium-contaminated soil from two state Superfund sites in the Jersey City, New Jersey area was 
collected, crushed, sieved, dried, mixed with carbon and sand, and shipped to the Geotech pilot plant. 

The SITE demonstration consisted of one vitrification test run on soil from each site. During each test, 
solid and gas samples were collected from various locations in the Cold Top system and analyzed for 
several chemical and physical parameters. In addition, process monitoring data were recorded. During 
the demonstration, the Cold Top system treated about 10,000 pounds of soil contaminated with trivalent 
and hexavalent chromium and other metals. 

One primary and five secondary objectives were identified for the SITE demonstration. The primary 
objective was to develop test data to evaluate whether waste and product streams from the Cold Top 
vitrification system pilot plant were capable of meeting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definitions of a nonhazardous waste, based on the 
stream's leachable chromium content. Secondary objectives were to determine the following: (1) 
partitioning of chromium and hexavalent chromium from the contaminated soil into various waste and 
product streams; (2) the ability of the vitrified product to meet New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection (NJDEP) criteria for use as fill material (such as road construction aggregate); (3) the system’s 
ability to meet applicable compliance regulations for air emissions of dioxins, furans, trace metals, 
particulates, and hydrogen chloride; (4) uncontrolled air emissions of the oxides of nitrogen, sulfur 
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and total hydrocarbons from the vitrification unit; and (5) projected operating 
costs of the technology per ton of soil. 

Observational demonstration results showed that the Cold Top system vitrified chromium-contaminated 
soil from the two New Jersey sites, yielding a product meeting RCRA toxicity characteristic leaching 
procedure (TCLP) standards. From soil excavated at one of the New Jersey sites, the system yielded a 
potentially recyclable metallic product referred to as “ferrofurnace bottoms" that also met the RCRA 


v 


TCLP chromium standard. Demonstration results also showed that the chromium content of the vitrified 
products did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soils, but that the baghouse dusts were 
higher in chromium content than the untreated soils. Hexavalent chromium concentrations in the 
untreated soil were generally not detected (reduced at least two to three orders of magnitude) in the 
vitrified product and ferrofurnace bottoms. The hexavalent chromium concentration in the baghouse dust 
was about the same as that in the untreated soil. 

Results of emissions modeling indicate that the concentration of metals in stack emissions depend on 
soil characteristics, the APCS, and detection limits of various analytes. Analysis of operating costs 
indicates that Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to that treated during the SITE 
demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential 
credits for sale of the vitrified product. 

The results of all sample analyses and quality assurance and quality control data from the SITE 
demonstration were evaluated with respect to the project objectives specified by the quality assurance 
project plan (QAPP). The conclusions of the demonstration are being reported as observational, 
meaning that although the authors feel the conclusions are supported, some data are not statistically 
valid at the levels specified in the original data quality objectives. 


vi 


Section 


CONTENTS 


Page 


NOTICE. ii 

FOREWORD.’ ’ ’ ’ ’’’’’’’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ' ’ ’ jii 

ABSTRACT. v 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .xi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. x jjj 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. ES-1 


1.0 INTRODUCTION 


1.1 THE SITE PROGRAM . 1 

1.2 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT. 2 

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . 3 

1.4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION. 4 

1.5 KEY CONTACTS. 5 

2.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS. 7 

2.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA. 7 

2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. 7 

2.1.2 Compliance with ARARs . 9 

2.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. 9 

2.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment. 9 

2.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness . 10 

2.1.6 Implementability. 10 

2.1.7 Costs . 10 

2.1.8 State Acceptance. 11 

2.1.9 Community Acceptance. 11 

2.2 TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE REGARDING ARARs . 11 

2.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act. 12 

2.2.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act . 15 

2.2.3 Clean Air Act. 17 

2.2.4 Toxic Substances Control Act. 18 

2.2.5 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements. 18 

2.3 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY . 18 

2.4 APPLICABLE WASTES . 19 

2.5 KEY FEATURES OF THE COLD TOP EX SITU VITRIFICATION SYSTEM .... 19 

2.6 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT. 21 

2.7 MATERIALS-HANDLING REQUIREMENTS. 21 

2.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY. 21 


Vll 






































CONTENTS (Continued) 

Section Page 


3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. 23 

3.1 INTRODUCTION. 23 

3.2 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS . 25 

3.3 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. 25 

3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs . 26 

3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs. 27 

3.3.3 Capital Costs . 28 

3.3.4 Fixed Costs . 28 

3.3.5 Labor Costs . 28 

3.3.6 Materials Costs . 28 

3.3.7 Utilities Costs . 29 

3.3.8 Disposal Costs. 29 

3.3.9 Transportation Costs . 29 

3.3.10 Analytical Costs. 30 

3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs . 30 

3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs. 31 

3.4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS . 31 

3.4.1 Total Cost for a Typical Site under Three Scenarios . 31 

3.4.2 Cost Breakdown by Category . 31 

3.4.3 Cost Sensitivity to Electricity Rates . 31 

4.0 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS . 35 

4.1 DEMONSTRATION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH. 35 

4.2 DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES . 39 

4.2.1 Predemonstration Activities . 40 

4.2.2 Demonstration Activities. 40 

4.3 SAMPLING PROGRAM . 41 

4.3.1 Soil Dryer Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S4). 41 

4.3.2 Carbon Additive (Sampling Location S5). 41 

4.3.3 Sand Additive (Sampling Location S6). 42 

4.3.4 Dried, Blended Soil Mixture (Sampling Location S7) . 42 

4.3.5 Vitrification Furnace Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S8). 42 

4.3.6 Stack Gas (Sampling Location S13 and S9) . 44 

4.3.6.1 Sampling Location S13 - Vitrification Hood 

Exhaust - APCS Inlet.44 

4.3.6.2 Sampling Location S9A and B - APCS Outlet.44 


viii 






































CONTENTS (Continued) 

Section Pa^e 


4.3.7 Ferrofurnace Bottoms (Sampling Location SI0). 49 

4.3.8 Vitrified Product (Sampling Location SI 1). 49 

4.3.9 Sand Added to Vitrification Furnace (Sampling Location SI4). 49 

4.3.10 Mulcoa (Sampling Location SI5) . 50 

4.3.11 Sample Mass Measurements. 50 

4.4 DEMONSTRATION RESULTS. 51 

4.4.1 RCRA TCLP Chromium Standard . 51 

4.4.2 Chromium . 51 

4.4.3 Hexavalent Chromium. 54 

4.4.4 NJDEP Soil Cleanup Standards. 54 

4.4.5 Stack Emissions. 54 

4.4.5.1 Field Test Changes.55 

4.4.5.2 Results of Critical Parameters - Fluegas. 56 

4.4.5.3 Results of Non-Critical Parameters - Fluegas.56 

4.4.5.4 Continuous Emissions Monitoring.67 

4.4.5.5 Compliance with NYSDEC.71 

4.4.6 Other Analyses. 72 

4.4.6.1 Chloride Analysis.72 

4.4.6.2 Metallurgy of Ferrofurnace Bottoms . 73 

4.4.6.3 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure.73 

4.4.7 Cost . 74 

4.4.8 Summary of Demonstration Results . 75 

4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL. 76 

4.5.1 Conformance with Quality Assurance Objectives. 76 

4.5.1.1 Method Blanks . 76 

4.5.1.2 Analytical Quality Control Categories. 77 

4.5.2 Stack Emissions Sampling. 80 

4.5.2.1 EPA Method Cr +6 . 80 

4.5.2.2 EPA Method 23 . 81 

4.5.2.3 EPA Method 29 . 82 

5.0 TECHNOLOGY STATUS. 83 

REFERENCES. 85 


IX 




































FIGURES 

Figure Page 


1 Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System. 20 

2 Total Treatment Cost for a Typical Site. 32 

3 Cost Breakdown for Each Treatment Scenario. 33 

4 The Impact of Electricity Cost on Total Treatment Cost. 34 

5 Sampling Location S13 in Circular Duct after Vitrification Furnace . 45 

6 Traverse Point Layout for Sampling Locations S13 and S9A and S9B. 46 

7 Sampling Locations S9A and S9B in the APCS Outlet. 48 

8 CEM Data for Run 1. 68 

9 CEM Data for Run 2 . 69 

TABLES 

Table Page 


1 Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the Cold Top Technology. 8 

2 Potential Federal ARARs for the Cold Top Ex Situ Vitrification System. 13 

3 Summary of Costs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification Process . 24 

4 Results of Chromium Analyses of Soils from Bench-Scale Study. 36 

5 Sampling Locations . 43 

6 Traverse Point Locations in Inches from Duct Wall . 47 

7 Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Site 130. 52 

8 Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Liberty State Park. 53 

9 New Jersey Soil Cleanup Standards. 55 

10 Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S13. 57 

11 Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S9A. 58 

12 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Parameters. 59 

13 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentrations at 7 Percent Oxygen. 60 

14 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates . 62 

15 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Average Fluegas Values . 64 

16 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Concentrations at 7 Percent 

Oxygen . 65 

17 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Mass Emission Rates. 66 

18 CEM Sampling Matrix at Location SI3. 67 

19 CEMs-Run 1 . 70 

20 CEMs-Run 2. 70 

21 Chloride in Dried, Blended Soil Mixture. 72 

22 Metal Composition of Ferrofurnace Bottoms from Liberty State Park Soil . 73 

23 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Results . 74 

24 QA Data Objectives for Accuracy, Precision , and Completeness.78 


x 







































ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 


AGC 

APCS 

ARAR 

ATTIC 

b 

B 

BIF 

C 

CAA 

°C 

CEM 

CERCLA 

CERI 

CFR 

CO 

C0 2 

Cr +6 

cy 

dscf 

dscf/hr 

dscm 

EPA 

°F 

ft/s 

Geotech 

g/hr 

HC1 

ID 

ITER 

kVA 

kWh 

LDR 

lb 

/^g/dscm 

/urn 

MDL 

mg/d sc m 

mg/kg 

mg/L 

MS 

MSD 

NA 

NAAQS 


Annual guideline concentration 

Air pollution control system 

Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement 

Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center 

Blank contamination 

Estimated result is less than reporting limit 
Boilers and industrial furnace 
Co-eluting isomers/congeners 
Clean Air Act 
Degree Celsius 

Continuous emissions monitor 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

Center for Environmental Research Information 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Carbon monoxide 

Carbon dioxide 

Hexavalent chromium 

Cubic yard 

Dry standard cubic foot 

Dry standard cubic foot per hour 

Dry standard cubic meter 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Degree Fahrenheit 

Foot per second 

Geotech Development Corporation 
Gram per hour 
Hydrogen chloride gas 
Induced draft 

Innovative Technology Evaluation Report 

Kilovolt-amp 

Kilowatt hour 

Land disposal restriction 

Pound 

Microgram per dry standard cubic meter 
Micrometer 

Method Detection Limit 

Milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 

Milligrams per kilogram 

Milligram per liter 

Matrix spike 

Matrix spike duplicate 

Not analyzed 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 


xi 


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued) 


ND 

ng/dscm 

NJDEP 

NJIT 

NO x 

NRMRL 

NR 

NYSDEC 

o 2 

ORD 

OSHA 

OSWER 

QAO 

PCDD 

PCDF 

%V 

PGC 

PPE 

ppm 

PSD 

Q 

QA 

QAPP 

QC 

RCRA 

SARA 

SD 

SGC 

SIT 

SITE 

S0 2 

SPLP 

Not detected 

Nanograms per dry standard cubic meter 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

New Jersey Institute of Technology 

Nitrogen oxides 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Not recorded 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Oxygen 

U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Quality Assurance Objective 

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 

Polychlorinated dibenzofuran 

Percent by volume 

Potential annual guideline concentration 

Personal protective equipment 
part per million 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

Estimated maximum possible concentration 

Quality assurance 

Quality assurance project plan 

Quality control 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 

Standard Deviation 

Short-term guideline concentration 

Stevens Institute of Technology 

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 

Sulfur dioxide 

Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure 

Target analyte list 

TCLP 

TEQ 

THC 

TSCA 

VISITT 

XPS 

Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 

2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents 

Total hydrocarbons 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies 
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy 


Xll 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


This report was prepared under the direction of Ms. Marta K. Richards, the EPA Superfund Innovative 
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Project Manager at the National Risk Management Research Laboratory 
(NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. This report was prepared by Mr. Robert Foster, Mr. Keith Foszcz, 

Dr. Kenneth Partymiller, and Ms. Regina Bergner of Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Mr. Vince Alaimo of 
Energy and Environmental Research, Inc. Contributors and reviewers for this report included Ms. Marta 
K. Richards of NRMRL; Mr. Thomas Tate of Geotech, Inc.; Mr. William Librizzi, Mr. Gerald McKenna, 
and Dr. Jay Meegoda of New Jersey Institute of Technology; and Mr. Scott Santora and Mr. Robert 
Mueller of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 


xm 




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification technology 
developed by Geotech Development Corporation (Geotech). The Cold Top technology was 
demonstrated at the Geotech pilot-plant facility in Niagara Falls, New York, under the EPA Superfund 
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program and in conjunction with the New Jersey Institute of 
Technology (NJIT) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1997. 

The purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report is to present and summarize information 
from the SITE demonstration of the Cold Top technology. The information is intended for remedial 
managers, environmental consultants, and other potential users who may consider using the technology to 
treat Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) hazardous wastes. 

Section 1.0 presents an overview of the SITE program, describes the Cold Top technology, and lists key 
contacts. Section 2.0 discusses information relevant to the technology's application, including an 
assessment of the technology related to the nine feasibility study evaluation criteria, potential applicable 
environmental regulations, and operability and limitations of the technology. Section 3.0 summarizes the 
costs associated with implementing the technology. Section 4.0 presents the waste characteristics, 
demonstration approach, demonstration procedures, and the results and conclusions of the demonstration. 
Section 5.0 summarizes the technology status, and Section 6.0 includes a list of references. The 
Appendices include several technical reports concerning the technology, prepared by NJIT. The first 
report presents the findings of a bench-scale study of the technology and the second presents the results 
of a study on the use of the vitrified product from the SITE demonstration as fill for road aggregate. 

The remainder of this executive summary provides an overview of the Cold Top technology; its waste 
applicability; demonstration objectives, approach, and conclusions; other case studies; and technology 
applicability. 

The Cold Top Technology 

Geotech of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, has developed an ex-situ, submerged-electrode, resistance¬ 
melting technology designed to convert contaminated soil into an essentially monolithic, vitrified mass. 
According to Geotech, a development engineering firm holding four patents in the field of applied 
electrical power, vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil from assorted, 
crystalline matrices into a glassy, amorphous solid comprised of interlaced polymeric chains that 
typically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Geotech claims that chromium can readily 
substitute for silicon in these chains, thus rendering the chromium immobile to leaching by aqueous 
solvents and, therefore, nontoxic. 


ES-1 


For the past 15 years, Geotech has operated a pilot plant that has vitrified a wide variety of materials, 
including granite, blast-furnace slag, fly ash, spent catalyst, and flue dust. Several production plants 
based on the Geotech technology are now being used to produce mineral fiber and other commercial 
products. The heart of the system is an electric resistance furnace capable of operating at melting 
temperatures of up to 5,200 °F (2,870 °C). The furnace is cooled by water circulating within its hollow 
jacket and is equipped with an off-gas treatment system, which may include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet 
scrubbers, depending on waste characteristics. 

Prior to treatment, the furnace is initially charged with a mixture of sand and alumina/silica clay. 

Through electrical resistance heating, a molten pool forms; the voltage to the furnace is properly 
adjusted; and, finally, contaminated soil is fed into the furnace by a screw conveyor. Geotech removes 
the furnace plug from below the molten-product tap when the desired soil-melt temperature is achieved. 
As the soil melts, additional soil is added to maintain a “cold top/’ During the demonstration test, the 
outflow was poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling. Excess material was 
discharged to a water sluice for immediate cooling and collection before off-site disposal. 

Waste Applicability 

According to Geotech, the Cold Top Vitrification process has been used to treat soils contaminated with 
hazardous heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and chromium; asbestos and asbestos-containing 
materials; and municipal solid waste combustor-ash residue. Waste material must be sized to pass 
through a 3/8-inch screen. The Cold Top Vitrification process is most efficient when feed materials have 
been dewatered to less than 5 percent water and organic chemical concentrations have been minimized. 

Wastes similar to those treated during the demonstration may require the addition of sand to ensure that 
the vitrification process produces a glass-like product. According to Geotech, in the molten state, 
inorganic contaminants fuse with the sand to become an integral part of the fused material. The vitrified 
product from the Cold Top process is designed to cool slowly to form a high-density, noncrystalline glass 
with physical properties suitable for commercial use. 

Geotech claims that the vitrified product has many uses, including shore erosion blocks, decorative tiles, 
roadbed fill, and cement or blacktop aggregate, and that radioactive wastes can be treated with this 
technology. 

Demonstration Objectives and Approach 

Key participants in the planning and execution of the Cold Top demonstration included the Geotech. 
NJIT, NJDEP, and the EPA SITE Program. Additional support was provided by the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Stevens Institute of Technology. 


ES-2 


Demonstration tests were performed on soils from two sites, representing residue from two types of 
chromite-ore-processing procedures. The sites were selected by NJDEP under an ongoing program to 
clean up over 150 hexavalent-chromium-contaminated sites. Excavated soils from Liberty State Park and 
NJDEP Site 130 were crushed, sieved, dried, and amended with carbon and sand at a facility in New 
Jersey. '‘Supersacs" containing the pretreated material were then shipped to the Geotech facility in 
Niagara Falls, NY, where separate demonstration runs were conducted on February 1 and March 11, 

1997. The SITE team collected samples of untreated soil, offgas generated during treatment, and 
baghouse dust. Cooled castings were transported to NJIT, where samples were crushed and ground for 
chemical analyses. Chemical analyses were performed in triplicate by NJIT and by SITE-contracted 
laboratories. 

Demonstration Conclusions 

The primary objective of the SITE demonstration was to determine if the waste and products produced by 
the Cold Top Vitrification system meet the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definition 
of a characteristic waste because of their chromium content. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 
Procedure was performed on both treated product and untreated waste to evaluate this objective. 

Secondary objectives of the demonstration were as follows: 1) evaluate the partitioning of total 
chromium from the waste feed into the various waste and product streams; 2) determine costs for treating 
the type of waste treated during the demonstration; 3) determine if the vitrified product meets NJDEP 
criteria for fill material, such as road construction aggregate, based on chromium, antimony, beryllium, 
cadmium, nickel, and vanadium concentrations; 4) determine if process air emissions meet NYSDEC 
compliance requirements and determine the uncontrolled air emissions of oxides of nitrogen, sulfur 
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride; and 5) determine if the high chlorine concentrations in 
the untreated soils causes formation of dioxins and furans in the exhaust gases. 

Due to a system shutdown during the first run and unanticipated changes made to the off-gas collection 
and treatment system during the second test run, data from the two runs are not directly comparable. 
Therefore, all demonstration data are presented as observational data. Observational data are data which 
are analytically sound but that did not meet the predetermined data quality objective goals. 

Demonstration findings included: 

RCRA TCLP Chromium Standard 

The Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from two New Jersey sites, producing a 
product meeting the RCRA TCLP total chromium standard at the 95 percent confidence level. 
Vitrification of soil from one of the two sites also produced ferrofumace bottoms, a potentially 


ES-3 



recyclable metallic product, that also met the RCRA TCLP total chromium standard. 

Chromium Partitioning 

With the exception of the baghouse dust and the ferrofurnace bottoms sample, the total chromium 
content of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soil. The 
concentrations of total chromium in the vitrification baghouse dust and ferrofurnace bottoms samples 
were approximately two and five times greater, respectively, than those found in the untreated soil. 

Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the ferrofurnace bottoms samples and was only detected in one 
of six vitrified-product samples. The hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one-half to 
approximately the same in the vitrification baghouse dust as in the untreated soil. The baghouse dust was 
presumed to be mainly fine-sized, untreated soil that was generated when soil was added to the 
vitrification furnace and then carried through the air pollution control system (APCS). 

Cost 


Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to that treated during the SITE 
demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential 
credits for the vitrified product. The three scenarios evaluated included (1) use of the vitrified product as 
aggregate, (2) backfilling of the vitrified product on site, and (3) landfilling of the vitrified product. 

Costs for these three scenarios were $83, $98, and $213 per ton, respectively. Because of the uncertainty 
of their formation, potential credits for ferrofurnace bottoms were not considered in this economic 
analysis. 

NJDEP Interim Cleanup Standards 

Comparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP interim soil cleanup standards 
indicated that the vitrified product met the interim standards for antimony, beryllium, cadmium, 
vanadium, and hexavalent chromium, but did not for nickel and total chromium. 

Stack Emissions 


Although the Cold Top technology is not an incineration technology, the stack emissions from the 
demonstration were compared to Subpart O incinerator regulations, and the results were mixed. The data 
collected during the SITE demonstration were input into complex modeling calculations supplied by New 
York State. The modeling required site- and waste-specific analyses to assess the impact of the Cold Top 
stack emissions. Results of the modeling were found to depend on the soil, the APCS, and the detection 
limits of the various analytes. Results of emissions modeling indicate that the concentrations of metals in 


ES-4 






stack emissions depend on the characteristics of the soil, the air pollution control system, and the 
detection limits of the various analytes. Emissions of dioxins, particulate, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur 
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride were all below the appropriate New York limits, based 
on appropriate measurement and calculation procedures. 

Dioxin and Furan Formation 


Exhaust gas concentrations of dioxins and furans were generally below the laboratory reporting limits. 
The high concentrations of chloride in the site soils could not be correlated with dioxin and furan 
formation. 

Other Observations 


Field observations and measurements made during the demonstration indicate that several operational 
issues must be addressed during technology scale-up. First, a consistent and controlled feed system 
needs to be developed that spreads the waste feed uniformly over the surface of the molten soil. This 
feed system must also minimize dust generation. Second, an emission control system needs to be 
configured to control any particulate and gaseous emissions from the furnace and feed system. 

Other Studies 

A bench-scale study of the Cold Top technology was performed at NJIT . After completion of this 
demonstration, NJIT studied the feasibility of using the vitrified product from the SITE demonstration as 
road aggregate. 


ES-5 



















































SECTION 1 
INTRODUCTION 


This section provides background information on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, discusses the purpose of this Innovative 
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER), and describes the Cold Top vitrification system developed by 
Geotech Development Corporation (Geotech) of Niagara Falls, New York. Additional information about 
the SITE program, the Geotech technology, and the demonstration can be obtained by contacting the key 
individuals listed at the end of this section. 

1.1 THE SITE PROGRAM 

The SITE program was established by the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 
(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) in response to the Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE program's primary purpose is to promote the use of 
alternative technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites. The various component programs under 
SITE are designed to encourage the development, demonstration, and use of new or innovative treatment 
and monitoring technologies. The program is designed to meet four primary objectives: 

• Identify and remove obstacles to the development and commercial use of alternate 
technologies 

• Structure a development program that nurtures emerging technologies 

• Demonstrate promising innovative technologies to establish reliable performance and 
cost information for site characterization and cleanup decision-making 

• Develop procedures and policies that encourage the selection of available alternative 
treatment remedies at Superfund sites as well as other waste sites and commercial 
facilities 

Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration Program through annual solicitations. ORD staff 
review the proposals to determine which technologies show the most promise for use at Superfund sites. 
Technologies chosen must be at the pilot- or full-scale stage, must be innovative, and must have some 
advantage over existing technologies. Mobile or transportable technologies are of particular interest. 
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, cooperative agreements between EPA and the developer establish 


1 


responsibilities for conducting the demonstrations and evaluating the technology. The developer is 
responsible for demonstrating the technology at the selected site and is expected to pay any costs of 
transporting, operating, and removing the equipment. EPA is responsible for project planning; 
transporting the material to be treated to a fixed facility for off-site demonstrations; sampling and 
analysis; quality assurance and quality control; preparing reports; disseminating information; and 
transporting and disposing of treated waste materials. 

For this Geotech technology demonstration, New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) has a contract 
with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to evaluate the Geotech Cold Top 
technology. EPA and NJIT have a formal agreement to cooperate in this evaluation. NJDEP is the lead 
agency for the evaluation, and EPA is furnishing additional resources to enhance the overall results. 

EPA's responsibilities for this demonstration are limited to the evaluation of the vitrification unit itself, 
while NJDEP will have primary responsibility for evaluating necessary pre- and post-vitrification 
treatment activities. 

The results of the demonstration are published in two basic documents: the SITE Technology Capsule 
and the ITER. The SITE Technology Capsule provides relevant information on the technology, 
emphasizing key results of the SITE demonstration. Both documents are intended for use by remedial 
managers who need a detailed evaluation of the technology for a specific site and waste. 

1.2 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT 

This ITER provides information on the Geotech technology and includes a comprehensive description of 
the demonstration and its results. The ITER is intended for use by EPA remedial project managers, EPA 
on-scene coordinators, contractors, and other decision makers who must implement specific remedial 
actions. The ITER is designed to aid decision makers in further evaluating specific technologies for 
consideration as an applicable option for a particular cleanup operation. 

To encourage the general use of demonstrated technologies, the ITER provides information regarding the 
applicability of each technology to specific sites and wastes. In particular, the report includes 
information on (1) cost and site-specific characteristics and (2) the advantages, disadvantages, and 
limitations of the technology. 


2 


Each SITE demonstration evaluates a technology’s performance in treating a specific material. Because 
the characteristics of other materials may differ from the characteristics of the treated material, successful 
field demonstration of a technology at one site does not necessarily ensure that it will be applicable at 
other sites. Data from the field demonstration may require extrapolation for estimating the operating 
ranges in which the technology will perform satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be drawn from 
a single field demonstration. 

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

About 3 tons of contaminated soil were excavated from each of two chromium-contaminated sites. The 
soil was screened to remove material larger than one inch in diameter and placed in drums for shipment 
to a facility in Camden, New Jersey, where it was dried, crushed, sieved, and blended with several 
additives. This soil pretreatment was performed because the developer claims that effective vitrification 
by the Cold Top system requires soil that is dried to less than 5 percent moisture and sized to less than 
0.375-inch diameter particle size. The addition of sand aids in the vitrification and improves the physical 
strength and other properties of the vitrified product. The soils from the two sites were handled 
separately. A continuous-loop or toroidal-flash dryer, operating at 300 to 450 °F (150 to 230 °C) inlet 
temperature with approximately 175°F (80°C) outlet or exhaust temperature, was used to dry the soils. 

A baghouse captured dust emitted by the drying process. During the drying operation, the soil was mixed 
with (1) sand to increase the silica content and facilitate vitrification, (2) carbon to increase the electrical 
conductivity of the mixture, and (3) dust from the baghouse. The resulting mixture was dry and well 
blended; it was placed in one-half-filled 2,000-pound-capacity polypropylene bags, called "supersacs,” 
and transported to Geotech in Niagara Falls, New York. 

At the Geotech facility, soil from each of the sites was placed in the vitrification furnace, which produced 
a vitrified product and, in one case, a by-product referred to as ferrofurnace bottoms. Off-gases from the 
vitrification oven and dust from the vitrification baghouse were collected. The products and waste 
streams of the vitrification process were sampled and analyzed as part of the demonstration. The vitrified 
product was then subjected to various tests by NJIT to determine if it is suitable for use in concrete or 
asphalt. 


3 


1.4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION 


Geotech, the developer of the ex-situ, submerged-electrode, resistance-melting technology known as 
“Cold Top,” claims its technology converts contaminated soil particles into an essentially monolithic, 
vitrified mass. According to Geotech, vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil 
from assorted crystalline matrices to a glassy, amorphous, solid state comprised of interlaced polymeric 
chains. These chains typically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Chromium is expected to 
readily substitute for silicon in the chains. According to Geotech, the chromium would then be immobile 
to leaching by aqueous solvents, and as a result, it would be biologically unavailable and nontoxic. 

The main unit of the system is a 1,350-kilovolt-amps (kVA) electric resistance furnace capable of 
operating at melting temperatures up to 5,200 °F (2,900 °C). Once the voltage is properly adjusted, the 
furnace operates continuously. The furnace is initially charged with a mixture of sand and alumina-silica 
clay. When subjected to electrical resistance heating, the mixture forms a molten pool; the voltage to the 
furnace is then adjusted; and the contaminated soil is fed into the furnace by a screw conveyor. As the 
soil melts, additional soil is added to maintain a “cold top.” When the desired soil-melting temperature is 
achieved, Geotech removes the furnace plug from below the molten-product tap. During the 
demonstration, the outflow was poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling. 
Material not collected in the molds for physical or chemical testing was discharged to a water sluice for 
immediate cooling and collection before off-site disposal. Other configurations of a full-scale system 
allow outflow to be converted to pellets and fibers. The furnace is equipped with an off-gas treatment 
system (which can include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet scrubbers) to control emissions. 


4 


1.5 KEY CONTACTS 


Additional information on the Geotech technology and the SITE program can be obtained from the 
following sources: 

The Geotech Development Corporation 

Dr. Thomas R. Tate 
President 

Geotech Development Corporation 
1150 First Avenue, Suite 630 
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 
(610) 337-8515 
FAX: (610) 768-5244 

The SITE Program 

Marta K. Richards 

EPA SITE Project Manager 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

26 West Martin Luther King Drive 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 

(513)569-7692 

FAX: (513) 569-7676 


Information on the SITE program is available through the following on-line information clearinghouses: 

• The Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) System is a 
comprehensive, automated, information retrieval system that integrates data on 
hazardous waste treatment technologies into a centralized source. The system operator 
can be reached at 301-670-6294. 

• The Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) 
database contains information on 154 technologies offered by 97 developers. The 
hotline number is 800-245-4505. 

• The OSWER CLU-In electronic bulletin board contains information on the status of 
SITE technology demonstrations. The system operator can be reached at 301-585-8368. 

• Other on-line Internet information sources. 


Technical reports may be obtained by contacting the EPA Center for Environmental Research 
Information (CERI) at 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268: telephone 
513-569-7562. 


5 














SECTION 2 

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS 


This section assesses the general applicability of the Geotech Cold Top system to remediate waste and 
contaminated soils from Superfund sites. This assessment is based on results from the SITE Program 
demonstration of the technology. 

Demonstration tests were performed on soils from two sites contaminated with residues from two types 
ot chromite-ore processing: NJDEP Site 130 and the NJDEP-owned Liberty State Park site. The sites 
were selected by NJDEP under an ongoing program to clean up more than 150 sites contaminated with 
hexavalent chromium. Excavated soils were crushed, sieved, dried, and blended with carbon and sand at 
a facility in Camden, New Jersey. Supersacs containing the pretreated material were then shipped to the 
Geotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York, where separate demonstration runs were conducted. 

2.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA 

This section assesses the Geotech technology relative to nine evaluation criteria used to conduct detailed 
analyses of remedial alternatives in feasibility studies performed under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Table 1 summarizes the 
evaluation criteria as they relate to the performance of the technology. 

2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 

This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks 
posed by each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or 
institutional controls. 

The Geotech technology provides both short- and long-term protection of human health and the 
environment by eliminating exposure to hazardous inorganic constituents; the process fuses hazardous 
constituents into a noncrystalline, glass-like product. Exposure to air emissions is minimized by 
removing contaminants with an off-gas treatment system. Potential accidental releases could temporarily 
affect air quality in the vicinity of the site. Site workers may be exposed to air emissions on a short-term 
basis when preparing the waste feed , dumping the waste feed from the supersacs into the feed hopper, 
and manually 


7 



Table 1. Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the Geotech Technology 


CRITERION 

GEOTECH TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE 

1 Overall Protection of 
Human Health and 
the Environment 

The Geotech technology fuses hazardous inorganic constituents into a noncrystalline, 
glass-like product. Air emissions are reduced by using an air pollution control system 
(APCS). 

2 Compliance with 
Federal ARARs 

Compliance with chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 
(ARARs) depends on the treatment efficiency of the vitrification system and the chemical 
constituents of the waste. Compliance with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs 
must be determined on a site-specific basis. For most sites, the following environmental 
regulations will be applicable to Cold Top operations: Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA); the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; and the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act. 

3 Long-Term 
Effectiveness and 
Permanence 

As the vitrified products met RCRA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 
requirements, these fused wastes were considered to be permanently treated. Treatment 
residuals from the APCS can be recycled through the system, and the vitrified product and 


ferrofurnace bottoms may be recycled or may require proper off-site disposal. 

4 Reduction of Toxicity, Vitrification reduces the mobility of the waste feed by fusing hazardous inorganic 


Mobility, or Volume 
Through Treatment 

constituents into a high-density, noncrystalline, glass-like product. Toxicity is also reduced 
by the chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium to less toxic species, such as trivalent 
chromium. 

5 Short-Term 
Effectiveness 

Short-term risks to workers, the community, and the environment are present during 
waste-handling activities and from potential exposure to process air emissions. Adverse 
impacts from both activities can be mitigated with proper personnel safety and 
waste-handling procedures and air pollution system control. 

6 Implementability 

The Cold Top system vitrifies a wide variety of materials. Geotech plans to establish a 
full-scale fixed facility in the northern New Jersey area. Currently, Geotech does not 
operate a transportable system, so only transportation of the waste feed needs to be 
evaluated for this criterion. 

7 Cost 

Costs for treatment by the Cold Top technology depend on waste- and location-specific 
factors such as the volume of material to be treated, physical properties of the material to be 
treated, transportation costs, electricity costs, and economic value or cost to dispose of the 
vitrified product and ferrofurnace bottoms. For the treatment scenarios evaluated in the 
economic analysis contained in this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report, costs ranged 
from $83 to $213 per ton. 

8 State Acceptance 

State acceptance to the full-scale, fixed Cold Top facility is likely to be favorable. 

9 Community 
Acceptance 

The minimal short-term risks presented to the community along with the permanent fusing 
of hazardous waste constituents in the waste, producing a usable product, should increase 
the likelihood of community acceptance of this technology. Additionally, as treatment by 
this technology takes place off site, acceptance by the community from where the waste is 
removed should be favorable. 


8 



removing the ferrofurnace bottoms after cool down. 


2.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 

This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and 
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of federal and state environmental statutes. General and specific 
ARARs identified for the Geotech technology are presented in Section 2.2. Compliance with chemical-, 
location-, and action-specific ARARs should be determined on a site-specific basis; however, location- 
, and action-specific ARARs generally can be met. Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs depends 
on the chemical constituents of the waste and the treatment efficiency of the vitrification system. 

2.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 

This criterion refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the 
environment over time. Vitrification is a proven treatment technology for hazardous wastes 
contaminated with inorganic constituents. Vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil 
from assorted crystalline matrices to a glassy, amorphous, solid state comprised of interlaced polymeric 
chains. These chains typically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Chromium is expected to 
readily substitute for silicon in the chains. According to Geotech, the chromium would then be immobile 
to leaching by aqueous solvents, and as a result, it would be biologically unavailable and nontoxic over 
time. 

2.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 

This criterion refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technology potentially employed in a 
Superfund remediation. With vitrification, the toxicity of the waste feed is reduced by permanently 
fusing hazardous inorganic constituents into a high-density, noncrystalline, glass-like product that may be 
used as shore erosion block, decorative tile, roadbed fill, and cement or blacktop aggregate. The density 
and volume of the vitrified product depends on the desired product. If high-density blocks are desired, 
the volume would be decreased. When the Cold Top system is run the way that was planned for the 
SITE demonstration, there would be no waste product planned for disposal as it would be completely 
recyclable. 

Results of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Synthetic Precipitation Leaching 
Procedure (SPLP) tests indicated that the Cold Top process reduced leachable chromium concentrations 


9 


in the hazardous waste feed to below the regulatory limit defined for a characteristic waste as defined by 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

Air emissions from the treatment process are controlled by an off-gas treatment system. The iron-rich 
ferrofurnace bottoms may be recycled. Any treatment residual (such as or baghouse dust) can be 
recycled through the system or shipped off site to a permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facility. 

2.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 

This criterion addresses the period of time needed to achieve lasting protection of human health and the 
environment as well as any adverse impacts that may be posed during the construction and 
implementation period before cleanup goals are achieved. During system operation, potential short-term 
risks presented to workers, the community, and the environment may include exposures to hazardous 
substances during waste-handling activities and exposures to air emissions. Adverse impacts during 
waste-handling activities should be minimized by properly operating the Geotech technology, properly 
handling waste streams, and properly using appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE). Adverse 
impacts from the emissions are mitigated by using an off-gas treatment system. 

2.1.6 Implementability 

This criterion considers the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the availability 
of materials and services needed to implement a particular option. Geotech operates a pilot plant in 
Niagara Falls, New York, that vitrifies a wide variety of materials. Currently, Geotech does not operate a 
transportable system; therefore, only the transportation of the waste feed needs to be evaluated for this 
criterion. 

2.1.7 Costs 

This criterion addresses estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs as well as net present 
worth costs. Costs for treatment by the Geotech technology will depend on site-specific factors such as 
the volume of material to be treated, physical properties of the material, contaminant types and 
concentrations, and site location. For the treatment scenarios evaluated in the economic analysis, costs 
ranged from $83 to $213 per ton. Section 3 of this report provides a detailed discussion of costs for the 
application of this technology. 


10 


2.1.8 


State Acceptance 


This criterion addresses the technical or administrative issues and concerns the support agency may have 
regarding the technology. EPA and NJIT, as a contractor to NJDEP, have a formal agreement to 
cooperate on the evaluation of the Geotech Cold Top technology. NJDEP is the lead agency for the 
evaluation, and EPA is furnishing additional resources to enhance the overall results. EPA 
responsibilities for this demonstration are limited to the evaluation of the vitrification unit itself; NJDEP 
will have primary responsibility for evaluating necessary pre- and post-vitrification treatment activities. 
Acceptance by other states must be evaluated on a site-specific basis, although state acceptance is 
expected to be favorable. 

2.1.9 Community Acceptance 

This criterion addresses any issues or concerns the public may have regarding the technology . Public 
acceptance of this technology should be positive for two reasons: (1) the technology presents minimal 
short-term risks to the community and (2) it permanently fuses hazardous constituents in the waste to 
produce a material that may be used as shore erosion block, decorative tile, roadbed fill, and cement or 
blacktop aggregate. 

2.2 TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE REGARDING ARARs 

This section discusses specific environmental regulations pertinent to the demonstration and operation of 
the Geotech Cold Top system, including the transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes and 
treatment residuals. CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires the consideration of ARARs; CERCLA 
issues, although not true ARARs, are also considered. 

Regulations that apply to a particular remediation activity depend on the ty pe of remediation site and the 
type of waste treated. State and local regulatory requirements, which may be more stringent, must also 
be addressed by remedial managers. ARARs for the Geotech demonstration include the following: 

(1) CERCLA, (2) RCRA, (3) Clean Air Act (CAA), (4) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and (5) 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Table 2 summarizes these 
regulations, which are discussed in greater detail below. 


11 


2.2.1 


Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 


CERCLA, as amended by SARA, provides for federal authority to respond to releases or potential 
releases of any hazardous substance into the environment, as well as to releases of pollutants or 
contaminants that may present an imminent or significant danger to public health and welfare or the 
environment. Remedial alternatives that significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of 
hazardous materials and provide long-term protection are preferred. Selected remedies must also be cost- 
effective and protective of human health and the environment. 

Due to the large number and relatively small size of most of the New Jersey chromium-contaminated 
sites in New Jersey, the Geotech Cold Top system may likely be constructed in a central location to treat 
wastes from the various sites. In addition, for sites that contain large quantities of contaminated soil. 
Geotech is considering constructing a transportable unit for on-site operation. Disposal of residual 
wastes generated during on-site application might require off-site disposal or treatment. All on-site 
actions must meet all substantive state and federal ARARs. Substantive requirements pertain directly to 
actions or conditions in the environment (for example, air emission standards). Off-site actions must 
comply with legally applicable substantive and administrative requirements; administrative requirements, 
such as permitting, facilitate the implementation of substantive requirements. 

On-site remedial actions must comply with all federal ARARs as well as more stringent state ARARs. 
ARARs are determined on a site-by-site basis and may be waived under six conditions: (1) the action is 
an interim measure, and the ARAR will be met at completion; (2) compliance with the ARAR would 
pose a greater risk to health and the environment than noncompliance; (3) it is technically impracticable 
to meet the ARAR; (4) the standard of performance of an ARAR can be met by an equivalent method; 

(5) a state ARAR has not been consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) fund balancing, where ARAR 
compliance would entail such cost in relation to the added degree of protection or reduction of risk 
afforded by that ARAR that remedial action at other sites would be jeopardized. These waiver options 
apply only to Superfund actions taken on site, and justification for the waiver must be clearly 
demonstrated. Off-site remediations are not eligible for ARAR waivers, and all substantive and 
administrative applicable requirements must be met. 


Table 2. Potential Federal ARARs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification System 



13 














Table 2. Potential Federal ARARs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification System 



14 
















2.2.2 


Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 


RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Disposal Amendments of 1984, regulates 
the management and disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes. EPA and certain 
RCRA-authorized states [listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 272] implement 
and enforce RCRA and state regulations. 

RCRA regulations may vary according to the specific use of the Geotech system. For example, 
the Cold Top process may also be used with pretreatment process units to remove extensive 
organic contamination before vitrification. In such cases, pertinent RCRA regulations would 
need to be determined for each specific application. 

The presence of RCRA-defined hazardous waste determines whether RCRA regulations apply to 
the Geotech technology. If hazardous wastes are treated or generated during the operation of the 
technology, all RCRA requirements must be addressed regarding the management and disposal 
of hazardous wastes. RCRA regulations define hazardous wastes and regulate their transport and 
treatment, storage, and disposal. Wastes defined as hazardous under RCRA include 
characteristic and listed wastes. Criteria for identifying characteristic hazardous wastes are 
included in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C. Listed wastes generated from nonspecific and specific 
industrial sources, off-specification products, spill cleanups, and other industrial sources are 
itemized in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D. 

If hazardous wastes are treated by the Geotech system, the owner or operator of the treatment or 
disposal facility must obtain an EPA identification number and a RCRA permit from EPA or the 
RCRA-authorized state. RCRA requirements for permits are specified in 40 CFR Part 270. 

The Geotech Cold Top system is classified as a smelting, melting, and refining furnace by the 
boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) rule (as defined in 40 CFR Part 260.10). If the treatment 
waste feed has a high organic content, the Geotech system may burn or process wastes as a BIF; 
in such cases, the BIF rule outlined in 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H may become an ARAR. 


15 


Treatment residuals generated during the operation of the system, such as baghouse dust, must be 
stored and disposed of properly. If the treatment waste feed is a listed waste, treatment residuals 
must be considered listed wastes (unless RCRA delisting requirements are met). If the treatment 
residuals are not listed wastes, they should be tested to determine if they are RCRA characteristic 
hazardous wastes. If the residuals are not hazardous and do not contain free liquids, they can be 
disposed of on site or at a nonhazardous waste landfill. If the treatment residuals are hazardous, 
the following RCRA standards apply: 


Standards and requirements for generators of hazardous waste, including hazardous 
treatment residuals, are outlined in 40 CFR Part 262. These requirements include 
obtaining an EPA identification number, meeting waste-accumulation standards, labeling 
wastes, and keeping appropriate records. Part 262 allows generators to store wastes up to 
90 days without a permit and without having interim status as a treatment, storage, or 
disposal facility. If treatment residuals are stored on site for 90 days or more, 40 CFR 
Part 265 requirements apply. 

Any on- or off-site facility designated for permanent disposal of hazardous treatment 
residuals must be in compliance with RCRA. Disposal facilities must fulfill permitting, 
storage, maintenance, and closure requirements provided in 40 CFR Parts 264 through 
270. In addition, any state RCRA requirements must be fulfilled. If treatment residuals 
are disposed of off site, 40 CFR Part 263 transportation standards apply. 


The waste feed mixture used during the Geotech demonstration included chromium- 
contaminated soil from two types of chromite-ore processing sites. Soils classified as hazardous 
waste are subject to land disposal restrictions (LDR) under both RCRA and CERCLA. 
Applicable RCRA requirements may include (1) a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest if the 
treated soils are transported, (2) restrictions on placing soils in land disposal units, (3) time limits 
on accumulating treated soils, and (4) permits for storing treated soils. 


Requirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated facilities are provided in 40 CFR Part 
264, Subpart F (promulgated) and Subpart S (proposed). These subparts also apply to 
remediation at Superfund sites. Subparts F and S include requirements for initiating and 
conducting RCRA corrective actions, remediating groundwater, and ensuring that corrective 
actions comply with other environmental regulations. Subpart S also details conditions under 


16 


which particular RCRA requirements may be waived for temporary treatment units operating at 
corrective action sites. Thus, RCRA mandates requirements similar to CERCLA, and as 
proposed, may allow units such as the Geotech treatment system to operate with partial waivers 
of permits. 

2.2.3 Clean Air Act 

The CAA and its 1990 amendments establish (1) primary and secondary ambient air quality 
standards for the protection of public health and (2) emission limitations on certain hazardous air 
pollutants. 

CAA permitting requirements are administered by each state as part of State Implementation 
Plans developed to bring each state into compliance with National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS). Ambient air quality standards for specific pollutants apply to the operation 
of the Geotech system, because the technology ultimately results in an emission from a point 
source to the ambient air. Allowable emission limits for the operation of a Geotech system will 
be established on a case-by-case basis depending on the type of waste treated and whether or not 
the site is in a NAAQS attainment area. Allowable emission limits may be set for specific 
hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, or other pollutants. If the site is 
in an attainment area, the allowable emission limits may still be curtailed by the increments 
available under prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations. Typically, an air 
pollution control system (APCS) similar to the type used during the SITE demonstration will be 
required to control the discharge of emissions to the ambient air. 

ARARs pertaining to the CAA must be determined on a site-by-site basis. In attainment (or 
unclassified) areas, remedial activities involving the Geotech technology may be subject to PSD 
requirements in Part C of the CAA. The PSD requirements will apply when remedial activities 
involve a major source or modification as defined in 40 CFR Section 52.21; remedial activities 
subject to review must apply the best available control technologies and demonstrate that the 


17 


activity will not adversely affect ambient air quality. 


2.2.4 Toxic Substances Control Act 

Although the waste material treated during the SITE demonstration of the Cold Top technology 
did not contain asbestos, successful treatment of asbestos-contaminated materials is a claim of 
the technology. Asbestos regulations are described in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 
and 40 CFR Part 763. If the system is used to treat asbestos-contaminated material, the 
remediation will require TSCA authorization that defines operational and disposal constraints. If 
the asbestos-contaminated material contains RCRA wastes, RCRA compliance is also required. 

2.2.5 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements 

CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions must be performed in accordance with OSHA 
requirements detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, especially Part 1910.120, which provides for 
the health and safety of workers at hazardous waste sites. On-site construction activities at Superfund or 
RCRA corrective actions sites must be performed in accordance with Part 1926 of OSHA, which 
provides safety and health regulations for construction sites. State OSHA requirements, which may be 
significantly stricter than federal standards, must also be met. 

All technicians operating the Geotech treatment system are required to have completed an OSHA training 
course and must be familiar with all OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous waste sites. For most 
sites, minimum PPE for technicians will include gloves, hard hats, steel-toe boots, and coveralls. 
Depending on contaminant types and concentrations, additional PPE may be required. 

2.3 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY 

A schematic of the Cold Top system is shown in Figure 1. The system is controlled by an operator 
working at a control panel. The operator can control the power supplied to each of the vitrification 
electrodes. The amount of power supplied to the electrodes determines the rate at which contaminated 
soil is vitrified and also the rate at which untreated soil must be added to the furnace. Prior to startup, the 


18 


furnace is lined with sand to insulate its bottom and walls. A clay material, Mulcoa, is added on top of the 
sand. The energy required to melt Mulcoa is well characterized by Geotech and they use this information 
to determine the initial setting of the furnace. Contaminated soil is placed on top of the Mulcoa and, once 
the Mulcoa begins to melt and the power to the electrodes is properly determined, the soil begins to melt 
also. By visualizing the vitrified effluent from the reactor, the operator can tell when the Mulcoa has been 
completely melted and discharged. At this point, the discharge rate of the vitrified soil is closely 
monitored using a ladle, and power to the electrodes is adjusted, as necessary, to maintain the desired flow 
rate. This flow rate is maintained throughout the test run. A skilled operator is required to monitor and 
run the system. 

2.4 APPLICABLE WASTES 

Geotech has operated a pilot plant that has vitrified a wide variety of materials, including granite, blast 
furnace slag, fly ash, spent catalyst, and flue dust. In addition, the Cold Top vitrification process has been 
used to treat soils contaminated with hazardous heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and chromium; 
asbestos and asbestos-containing materials; and municipal-solid-waste-incinerator-ash residue. Waste 
material must be sized to pass through a 0.375-inch mesh screen. 

The Cold Top vitrification process is most efficient when (1) feed materials have been dewatered to less 
than 5 percent water and (2) organic chemical concentrations have been minimized. The demonstration 
wastes required the addition of carbon and sand to ensure that the vitrification process produced a durable 
glass-like product. 

2.5 KEY FEATURES OF THE GEOTECH COLD TOP SYSTEM 

The system is a 1,350-kVA electric resistance furnace capable of operating at melting temperatures of up 
to 5,200 °F (2,870 °C). The furnace is cooled by water circulating within its hollow jacket and is 
equipped with an off-gas treatment system, which may include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet scrubbers, 
depending on waste characteristics. Once the operating temperature is attained, contaminated soil is 
continuously fed to the furnace by a screw conveyor, while vitrified product is tapped from the middle of 
the furnace. 


19 


TO AIR POLLUTION 
CONTROL SYSTEM 



20 



















































































2.6 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT 


For the past 15 years, Geotech’s pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York, has vitrified a wide variety of 
materials. A Geotech system may be constructed and centrally located for the more than 150 chromium- 
contaminated sites in New Jersey. Although Geotech does not currently operate a transportable system, it 
is considering constructing a transportable unit for sites that contain large quantities of contaminated soil. 
Several production plants based on the Geotech technology are now being used to produce mineral fiber 
and other commercial products. These plants could be converted to the treatment of hazardous wastes. 

2.7 MATERIALS-HANDLING REQUIREMENTS 

Waste feed must be sized to pass through a 0.375-inch mesh screen. The Cold Top vitrification process is 
most efficient when (1) feed materials have been dewatered to less than 5 percent water and (2) organic 
chemical concentrations have been minimized. Waste feed may require the addition of carbon (to increase 
the electrical conductivity of the mixture) and silica (to increase the silica content and facilitate 
vitrification). Demonstration waste feed pretreatment consisted of reducing the particle size, drying, and 
blending with 0.2 percent carbon and 25 percent sand by weight. Following pretreatment, the waste feed 
was placed in supersacs for transport to the Cold Top furnace. The waste feed was then emptied from the 
supersacs into a feed hopper where it was metered into the furnace by screw conveyor. 

When the desired soil melt temperature is achieved. Geotech removes the furnace plug from below the 
molten-product tap. During the demonstration, the outflow to be used for chemical and durability testing 
was poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling. Excess material was discharged to 
a water sluice for immediate cooling and collection for off-site disposal. 

2.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY 

The Geotech Cold Top system has several limitations. At the present time, waste material must be 
transported for treatment at the Geotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York, although other Cold Top 
facilities may be constructed in the future. Geotech is also considering constructing a transportable unit. 


21 


At the conclusion of a waste-feed run, ferrofurnace bottoms may be present in the furnace. This material 
must be analyzed prior to recycling or off-site disposal. The material may have significant value for 
recycling, therefore its formation as a by-product may be a benefit. Other limitations of the process, such 
as waste feed organic chemical content, dryness, and particle size, are discussed above. 


22 


SECTION 3 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 


This economic analysis presents cost estimates for using the Cold Top ex-situ vitrification system to treat 
contaminated soil. Cost data were compiled during the SITE demonstration at the Geotech test facility in 
Niagara Falls, New York, and from information obtained from Geotech. Costs have been placed in 12 
categories applicable to typical cleanup activities at Superfund and RCRA sites (Evans 1990). Costs 
were estimated using data in R.S. Means Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book (1996) and R.S. 
Means Building Construction Cost Data: 55 th Edition (1997). Estimated costs are considered to be 
order-of-magnitude estimates with an expected accuracy within 50 percent above and 30 percent below 
the actual costs. 

This section describes three scenarios selected for economic analysis (Section 3.1), summarizes the 
major issues involved and assumptions made in performing the analysis (Section 3.2), discusses costs 
associated with using the Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification process to treat contaminated soil (Section 3.3), 
and presents conclusions of the economic analysis (Section 3.4). 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

There are more than 150 chromium-contaminated sites in the northern New Jersey area. The amount of 
contaminated soil at most of the sites ranges from 100 to 500 cubic yards (cy); two or three of the sites 
have more than 1 million cy. The number and close proximity of these many sites presents a large 
market potential in the area for a treatment system such as the Cold Top process. This economic analysis 
presents costs based on treating contaminated soil at a newly constructed, fixed vitrification facility 
located in or near Jersey City, New Jersey. As costs for a transportable vitrification system may vary 
and the cost-effectiveness of such a system would depend on each site’s size, the economics of a 
transportable system are not addressed in this analysis. 

Table 3 presents estimated costs per ton for soil treatment under three disposal scenarios. Under scenario 
1, treated material is sold as road aggregate and clean backfill is used at the excavated site. This is the 
most economic scenario, and NJIT is conducting a concurrent investigation of the efficacy of this 
scenario. Under scenario 2, treated material is suitable for use as backfill at the excavated site, thus 
saving 


23 


Table 3. Summary of Costs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification Process 


Cost Categories 

Sell Treated Material 

as Aggregate and Use 

Clean Backfill 

($/ton) 

Backfill Treated 

Material 

($/ton) 

Landfill Treated 

Material and Use 

Clean Backfill 

($/ton) 

Site Preparation 




-Excavation 

$ 5.72 

$5.72 

$ 5.72 

-Waste preparation 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

Permitting and regulatory 

2.02 

2.02 

2.02 

requirements 




Capital costs 

8.03 

8.03 

8.03 

Fixed costs 

6.79 

6.79 

6.79 

Labor 

11.75 

11.75 

11.75 

Materials 

9.67 

1.67 

9.67 

Utilities 

23.28 

23.28 

23.28 

Disposal 

(12.50) 

0.00 

107.00 

Transportation 




-Excavated material 

10.00 

10.00 

10.00 

-Treated material 


10.00 

10.00 

Analytical costs 

7.11 

7.11 

7.11 

Equipment repair and 

5.50 

5.50 

5.50 

replacement 




Site demobilization 

1.11 

1.11 

1.11 

Total cost per ton 

$83 

$98 

$213 


24 




















costs associated with obtaining and using clean backfill material and off-site disposal of treated material. 
Under scenario 3, treated material is landfilled at a nonhazardous solid waste disposal facility, and clean 
backfill is used at the excavated site; this is obviously the most costly scenario. 

3.2 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS 

1 his section summarizes major issues and assumptions regarding site-specific factors, equipment, and 
operating parameters used in this economic analysis of the Cold Top vitrification process. Key 
assumptions are summarized as follows: 


The primary contaminant of concern is chromium, at concentrations up to 
100,000 mg/kg. 

Contaminated soil has a moisture content of about 15 percent, and less than 5 percent of 
the material will be retained on a 1-inch screen. 

The typical site contains 450 tons (or 300 cy) of contaminated soil and is located about 
20 miles from the vitrification facility. 

Geotech will construct and operate the vitrification facility at one of the contaminated 
sites near Jersey City, New Jersey. 

The proposed vitrification facility will process 300 tons per day (200 cy/day), or 
approximately 109,000 tons per year, of contaminated soil, including pretreatment as 
needed (such as crushing, drying, and mixing with additives). 


3.3 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

The cost analysis was prepared by breaking down the overall cost into the following 12 categories, some 
of which do not have costs associated with them for this particular technology: 

• Site preparation costs 

• Permitting and regulatory costs 

• Capital costs 


25 


Fixed costs 


Labor costs 
Materials costs 
Utilities 
Disposal costs 
Transport costs 
Analytical costs 

Facility modification, repair, and replacement costs 
Site demobilization costs 


The 12 cost factors and any related assumptions for the Cold Top process are examined below. As 
shown in Table 3, costs for many of the categories are the same for each scenario. 


3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs 


Typical site preparation costs associated with setting up a waste treatment system at a hazardous waste 
site include site design, planning and management, legal searches, access rights, and construction work 
Since the Cold Top facility in this analysis is a stationary unit, requiring waste to be brought to the 
facility for treatment, these costs are not incurred on a site-specific basis, and they are included within 
the capital cost category. 


For this analysis, site preparation costs are associated with excavating contaminated soil. Mobilization 
costs for excavation, including clearing light brush, installing temporary fencing, establishing working 
zones, and mobilizing equipment to the site, are estimated to be $1,000 for the small sites considered in 
this analysis. Excavation costs of $5.25 per cy are based on using a two-person crew with a backhoe or 


26 


tront-end loader for one 8-hour day, or approximately $1,575 to excavate the typical 300-cy (450-ton) 
site. This cost includes equipment, fuel, and labor costs. Therefore, the total site preparation cost for the 
typical site is approximately $2,575. For each of the three scenarios the site preparation cost is $8.58 per 
cy or $5.72 per ton. 


Waste preparation is assumed to be required before treatment in the Cold Top system. Geotech expects 
to provide waste pretreatment services at its fixed facility and would include any costs associated with 
this activity in its contract price. However, for this analysis, it is assumed that this waste preparation will 
be a separate operation that may be conducted at the contaminated site. Furthermore, it is assumed that 
contaminated material will require screening, magnetic separation, and drying. Approximately 

50 percent of the material will require crushing. Finally, silica will be added to the material, up to 

25 percent by volume, and the material will be blended. Based on the SITE demonstration and published 
costs for these individual operations, the estimated cost for waste preparation is $5.00 per ton. 


3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 


Permitting and regulatory costs will vary depending on whether treatment is performed on a Superfund or 
a RCRA corrective action site and the fate of the treated waste. Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended 
by SARA, requires that remedial actions be consistent with ARARs of environmental laws, ordinances, 
regulations, and statutes. ARARs include federal standards, as well as more stringent standards 
promulgated under state or local jurisdictions. ARARs must be determined on a site-specific basis. For 
this analysis, the cost for permits associated with construction activities at the site are estimated to be 
$500 or $ 1.67 per cy ($ 1.11 per ton). 


For most pollution control facilities, the cost of keeping up with applicable regulations and permits is 
substantial. However, in this economic analysis, sincethe Cold Top facility will not use contact cooling 
water and air emissions are expected to be low, the permitting cost for the facility are estimated to be 
about $100,000 per year, which includes professional services and regulatory fees. Based on the 
projected facility throughput of 109,000 tons per year, the permitting and regulatory cost is estimated to 
be $0.92 per ton for all cases. The total cost for this category is, therefore, $2.02 per ton. 


27 


3.3.3 Capital Costs 


Capital costs are based on information provided by Geotech. Specifically, Geotech provided this 
information as annual costs of $400,000 for depreciation and $475,000 for debt service on capital 
expenditures. Based on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated capital cost is $8.03 per ton. 


3.3.4 Fixed Costs 


Fixed costs for the Cold Top system include other annual expenses not directly related to waste 
treatment. Geotech has estimated the annual costs for these to be $110,000 for building utilities; 
$155,000 for insurance; $200,000 for general maintenance; and $275,000 for general administration. 
Based on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated fixed costs are $6.79 per ton. 


These costs do not include any profit. To establish a price for treatment, Geotech will add such profit as 
a fixed cost per ton, based on market conditions. As a result, actual fixed costs may be significantly 
higher per ton. 


3.3.5 Labor Costs 


For 24-hour per day operation, Geotech expects to employ a 21 full-time personnel. Based on 
observations during the SITE demonstration, a five-person crew during each shift should be adequate to 
safely operate the system. The crew would consist of a field engineer (approximately $25 per hour), an 
equipment operator ($20 per hour), and three laborers ($15 per hour each). Four crews plus one overall 
supervising engineer ($ 1,300 per week) would complete the 21 -person operating staff. Adding 50 
percent for fringe benefits, including worker training, the total annual labor costs for the vitrification 
facility are estimated to be $853,840. Based on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated labor costs are 
$11.75 per ton. 


3.3.6 Materials Costs 

Materials costs are associated with site cleanup and treatment. The costs associated with this treatment 


28 


include carbon and silica addition during pretreatment, kaolin clay and glass frit addition during startup, 
and electrode replacement. Pretreatment and startup material costs are generally minimal; electrode 
replacement costs are addressed in Section 3.3.11. 


For the three scenarios, the primary materials costs are associated with site backfilling, including labor, 
backfill material, spreading, and compaction. For the first and third scenarios, clean backfill will be used 
at the excavation. The estimated cost for supplying, spreading, and compacting clean borrow and 
backfill material will be $14.50 per cy or $9.67 per ton of soil treated. For the second, it is assumed that 
treated material will be replaced as backfill at the individual sites excavated. The estimated cost for 
spreading and compacting this material is $2.50 per cy or $ 1.67 per ton. 


3.3.7 Utilities Costs 

Electricity is the primary utility required for the Cold Top process. Only minimal drinking and service 
water is required for the system. Based on the SITE demonstration and other information provided by 
Geotech, the technology uses about 776 kilowatt-hours (kWhr) per ton of soil treated. Geotech expects 
to obtain a highly competitive rate of 3 cents per kWhr for its facility; however, this rate could be as high 
as 6 or 7 cents per kWhr (see Section 3.4.3). Therefore, the utility cost for the system could range from 
$23.28 to $54.32 per ton of soil treated. 

3.3.8 Disposal Costs 

Disposal costs represent the most significant difference among the three scenarios. In scenario 1, treated 
material is assumed to have a salable value as road aggregate. Standard costs for sand and stone 
aggregate are approximately $12.50 per ton, which will be assumed as a credit for this scenario. In 
scenario 2, treated material will be used as backfill at the site excavations; therefore, disposal costs are 
assumed to be zero. In scenario 3, disposal costs for landfilling the treated material would be $107 per 
ton, assuming a nonhazardous solid bulk waste. 


3.3.9 Transportation Costs 

Transportation costs will be incurred to transport soil from the contaminated sites to the vitrification 
facility. This analysis assumes an average distance of 20 miles from the site to (40 miles round trip), 


29 


with 300 cy of soil removed from the typical site. Based on these assumptions, it will take five 20-cy 
dump trucks four trips to remove the excavated soil. Transportation costs are estimated to be $15.00 per 
cy ($10.00 per ton) for each of the three scenarios. 


The same assumptions are used to estimate costs to (1) transport the treated material back to the site for 
backfilling in scenario 2 and (2) transport this material to a landfill in scenario 3. Again, these costs are 
estimated to be $15.00 per cy ($10.00 per ton). Transportation costs for scenario 1 are assumed to be 
bom by the purchaser. 


3.3.10 Analytical Costs 

Analytical costs are associated with confirmation of site excavation activities and evaluation of treatment 
effectiveness. While site-specific requirements may vary considerably, this analysis assumes that a total 
of 20 confirmation samples will be analyzed for metals at a cost of $100 per sample. Therefore, the cost 
for site confirmatory samples is $6.67 per cy or $4.44 per ton. 


At a minimum, three samples of treated material should be collected for each site and analyzed for total 
metals and TCLP metals. These analyses will cost about $400 per sample. For the typical site, total 
analytical costs to evaluate treatment effectiveness will be $1,200, or $4.00 per cy ($2.67 per ton). 
Therefore, total analytical costs for the technology are $10.67 per cy or $7.11 per ton. 


3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 

This cost category covers the general maintenance for the facility and the period replacement of 
electrodes and orifices for the vitrification units. Because the scope of the SITE demonstration limits the 
technology evaluation to a short time frame, costs under this category are based on information supplied 
by Geotech. For this analysis, costs are estimated based on a typical treatment campaign of 90 days, at 
which time the system would be shut down for 1 day to replace equipment, as needed. Geotech has 
estimated the annual repair and maintenance cost to be $400,000 for electrode and orifice replacement 
and $200,000 for general maintenance and ancillary equipment replacement. Therefore, the total cost to 
treat 109,000 tons of contaminated soil is $600,000, or $5.50 per ton of treated soil. 


30 


3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs 


Site demobilization and restoration are limited to the removal of equipment from the site. The cost for 
excavation demobilization at the typical site is estimated to be $500. Requirements regarding the 
backfilling, grading, and recompaction of the material in the excavation are included in Section 3.3.6. 
Therefore, demobilization costs are $ 1.67 per cy or $ 1.11 per ton. 

3.4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 


This section summarizes the costs for the Cold Top system for the three scenarios and the 12 cost 
categories. This section also presents an analysis of the impact of electricity rates on the technology’s 
cost. 


3.4.1 Total Cost for a Typical Site under Three Scenarios 

The distinguishing factor in identifying the three treatment scenarios are based on the options for 
handling the contaminated soil after treatment: (1) reuse it as construction material, (2) return it to the 
excavated area, or (3) dispose of it at a landfill. Figure 2 compares the total costs for the three scenarios. 


3.4.2 Cost Breakdown by Category 

Costs for each of the twelve cost categories are summarized in Table 3 and shown in Figure 3 as costs per 
ton of soil treated, which range from $83 to $213 per ton of contaminated soil. 


3.4.3 Cost Sensitivity to Electricity Rates 

Electricity accounts for as much as 26 percent of the total technology treatment costs. Geotech expects 
to negotiate a preferred rate of $0.03 per kWhr during development of the New Jersey facility. However, 
electricity rates vary considerably based on location and market conditions. Figure 4 depicts the impact 
of electricity rates on total cost per ton for each of the three scenarios. 


31 



(000‘ 1$) tsoo |B »01 


32 


Figure 2. Total Treatment Cost for Typical Site 










Sell Treated Material as Aggregate and Use Clean Backfill 



Backfill Treated Material 


$25 



Figure 3b. Cost Breakdown for Scenario No. 2 

Landfill Treated Material and Use Clean Backfill 


$25 


$20 


c $15 

o 

t 

** $10 


$5 



Figure 3c. Cost Breakdown for Scenario No. 3 


Figure 3. Cost Breakdown for Scenarios No. 1, 2, and 3 


Total Cost 
$83/ton 


Total Cost 
$98/ton 


Total Cost 
$213/ton 


33 

















































































250.00 




34 


Figure 4. Impact of Electricity Cost on Total Treatment Cost 












SECTION 4 

TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS 


In 1994, the Stevens Institute of Technology (SIT), one of 2 universities involved in this project, 
conducted a bench-scale study to determine the performance of the Cold Top vitrification process based 
on the leachability of chromium and the concentration of hexavalent chromium in the glass product. 

The study included the collection and subsequent analysis of soils from nine chromium-contaminated 
sites in northern New Jersey (see Table 4 and Meegoda 1995). The soils were analyzed for total 
chromium, hexavalent chromium, and pH; the soils also underwent TCLP analyses for chromium. The 
concentrations of hexavalent chromium in the soils ranged from less than 5.8 milligrams per kilogram 
(mg/kg) to 4,800 mg/kg. The pH of the soils varied from 8.1 to 11.4, with three sites having a pH 
above 10. The results of the evaluation indicated that concentrations of chromium in the TCLP 
leachate of the vitrified samples were generally less than 1.1 milligram per liter (mg/L), which is below 
the regulatory threshold concentration of 5 mg/L that would define the vitrified product as a hazardous 
waste. 

Contaminated soils from Liberty State Park and Site 130, both New Jersey Superfund sites, were 
selected for the Cold Top demonstration based on site access and the concentrations of chromium in 
untreated soils. The two sites are located in Hudson County in northern New Jersey. Table 4 
summarizes the results of chromium analyses conducted before and after the SIT bench-scale treatment 
of soil from these two sites. Contaminated soils from the sites were treated at the Geotech vitrification 
pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York. 

4.1 DEMONSTRATION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH 

The general objective of the Cold Top SITE demonstration was to develop data needed to allow an 
unbiased, quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of this technology. To ensure the 
attainment of data that would allow such an evaluation, specific, performance-based objectives were 
developed. This technology demonstration had both primary and secondary SITE program objectives. 
Primary objectives (P) are considered critical for the technology evaluation. Secondary objectives (S) 
provide additional information that is useful but not critical. To obtain the data required to meet the 


35 


specified demonstration objectives, samples were collected and process measurements were made at the 
locations described in Section 4.3. The primary objective of this demonstration was as follows: 


Table 4. Results of Chromium Analyses of Soils from Bench-Scale Study 

(Stevens Institute of Technology Data) 


Site 

Untreated Soil 

Treated Soil 


TCLP 

Chromium 

(mg/L) 

Hexavalent 

Chromium 

(mg/kg) 

Total 

Chromium 

(mg/kg) 

TCLP 

Chromium 

(mg/L) 

Hexavalent 

Chromium 

(mg/kg) 

Total 

Chromium 

(mg/kg) 

Site 130 

48.6 

4,800 

5,294 

0.0254 

<5.2 

48.4/15.2' 

Liberty State Park 

32.4 

1,240 

1,544 

0.0934 

<5.2 

40.8/111.2' 


Note: 


1 The two results are obtained from duplicate analyses. 

P-1 Determine if the waste and product streams from the vitrification unit meet the RCRA 
definitions of a characteristic waste due to their chromium content; this determination 
should be made based on a 95 percent confidence level. For comparison, the chromium 
concentrations in the untreated soils was determined. 


For wastes from each site, the demonstration evaluated the TCLP concentrations of chromium in the 
dried, blended soil mixture; the process residuals; and the vitrified product from the treatment process. 
This evaluation determined if the untreated soil, the process waste streams, and the vitrified product met 
the regulatory definition of a hazardous waste, specifically whether they exhibited the toxicity 
characteristic for chromium. To achieve this objective, the dried, crushed, blended, (but untreated) soil 
mixture; process residuals (including vitrification baghouse dust and ferrofumace bottoms); and the 
vitrified product were subjected to TCLP testing, and the extracts were analyzed to determine total 
chromium concentrations. Chromium concentrations of 5.0 mg/L or less in the TCLP extracts would 
indicate that the residuals would not be defined as hazardous wastes due to the presence of chromium. 
Samples of untreated soil from each site were composited during soil collection; and one sample from 
each site was analyzed to determine the approximate chromium levels in the TCLP extract. The data 
show that chromium concentrations in the TCLP extract, of the contaminated site soils exceeded the 
RCRA hazardous waste criteria of 5.0 mg/L by factors of six to ten. 


36 
















There were problems attaining these objectives. The problems are discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. 
Another purpose of the SITE demonstration was to accomplish the following five secondary objectives: 

S-l Determine the partitioning of total and hexavalent chromium from the dried waste into 
various waste and product streams. 

Mass balances were to be performed around the vitrification process for both total and hexavalent 
chromium to determine the relative partitioning of chromium into baghouse dust, stack emissions, 
ferrofurnace bottoms, and vitrified product. The total chromium mass balance was attempted by 
analyzing the following seven streams using the rigorous hydrofluoric acid digestion method: (1) the 
sand (silicon) and carbon additives; (2) the baghouse dust from the drying process; (3) the dried, 
crushed, and sieved, untreated soil blended with baghouse dust from the drying process and the sand 
and carbon additives; (4) the vitrification baghouse dust; (5) stack emissions (filter and impinger 
solution); (6) ferrofurnace bottoms; and (7) vitrified product. The weight of each material was to be 
determined, and the weights would then be multiplied by each material's respective concentration to 
determine the total amount of chromium in each stream. The weights of the above numbers (3) and 
(7) were not accurately determined due to weighing error and an inadequate supply of molds for the 
vitrification product. 

The mass balance for hexavalent chromium was to be accomplished by sampling and analyzing for 
hexavalent chromium in the same seven streams. The analytical results for hexavalent chromium were 
to be compared to the results for total chromium to determine if hexavalent chromium is converted to 
other oxidation states of chromium. 

S-2 Evaluate the operating costs of the Geotech technology per ton of soil 

This objective was achieved by estimating the total costs of utilities, labor, maintenance, supplies, and 
other necessary equipment or activities to treat a soil similar to those used in the demonstration (Evans 
1991). Once these costs were estimated, the cost per ton for treatment for a typical chromium- 
contaminated site was estimated for several treatment scenarios with different quantities of 
contaminated soil. 


37 


S-3 Determine whether the vitrified product from the treatment process met NJDEP criteria 
as fill material, such as for use as road construction aggregate. This involved sampling 
and subsequent analysis of the vitrified product for (1) total chromium and the target 
analyte list (TAL) minor metals using EPA-approved methods and (2) hexavalent 
chromium using a proposed EPA method. 

As a matter of policy, the State of New Jersey has employed soil cleanup standards for the TAL minor 
metals (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium) and for chromium and hexavalent 
chromium. New Jersey applies these standards to materials that will be placed on the land, such as the 
vitrified product. When applied to the vitrified product, the present cleanup standards specify that it 
contain less than 500 parts per million (ppm) of chromium when analyzed by appropriate EPA 
methods. To determine if the vitrified product contains less than 500 ppm chromium, a sample of the 
product was ground to pass through a 200-mesh sieve (75 micrometers [0.0029 inch]), digested, and 
analyzed for chromium by appropriate EPA SW-846 methods. To determine the applicability of the 
technology to soil containing other TAL minor metals, the digested vitrified product was analyzed for 
antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium using EPA SW-846 methodology. The State of 
New Jersey also recommends that the treated vitrified product contain less than 10 ppm of hexavalent 
chromium when analyzed using a modified version of proposed SW-846 Method 7196A. 

NJDEP cleanup criteria are established for both residential and non-residential direct contact scenarios 
for five TAL minor metals. According to NJDEP, the appropriate are criteria are 14 and 340 ppm for 
antimony, 1 and 1 ppm for beryllium, 1 and 100 ppm for cadmium, 250 and 2400 ppm for nickel, and 
370 and 7100 ppm for vanadium for the residential and non-residential direct contact scenarios, 
respectively. 


S-4 Determine the final air emissions of dioxins, furans, trace metals, particulate, and 
hydrogen chloride to determine adherence to compliance requirements. 

With one exception, exhaust gas sampling was performed downstream of the APCS during both of the 
demonstration test runs to fulfil this objective. During the second test run, the dioxin and furan sample 
was only collected before the APCS as data from the first test run showed that the dioxin and furan data 
did not differ before and after the APCS. Stack gas samples were collected and analyzed for dioxins 
and furans, trace metals, particulate and hydrogen chloride by EPA test methods. Data to meet this 


38 


objective were considered to be observational. 


S-5 Determine the uncontrolled air emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), sulfur dioxide 
(S0 2 ), and carbon monoxide (CO) from the vitrification unit. 

Continual on-line analyses of the flue gases, using continuous emissions monitors (CEMs), was 
conducted upstream of the system baghouse to determine the emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur 
dioxide, and carbon monoxide from the vitrification furnace. During the second demonstration test 
run, total hydrocarbon emissions were also monitored. Data to meet this objective were considered to 
be observational. 

4.2 DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES 

During the demonstration, two tests were performed, one for each of the two chromium-contaminated 
sites (Liberty State Park and Site 130). To evaluate the developer's claims, the test matrix was 
designed to yield the following types of data for each of the tests: 

• Emissions 

• Chromium leachability 

• Chromium partitioning 

• Operating cost estimate per ton of soil 

The primary objective of the SITE demonstration was to determine if waste and products produced by 
the Cold Top technology meet the RCRA definition of a characteristic waste because of their chromium 
content. The TCLP was performed on both treated product and untreated soil to meet this objective. 
Data were also obtained from other waste components, including sand and carbon additives and 
baghouse dust, and oven preparatory components, including sand and Mulcoa, to assess treatment 
efficiency of the technology and to obtain process information. 

This section summarizes activities performed before and during the demonstration, procedures required 
to evaluate the Cold Top process, and discusses the types of samples and measurements collected during 


39 


the demonstration. The section also describes sampling locations, sampling frequency, collection 
procedures, decontamination, sample designation and tracking, and deviations from the demonstration 
QAPP. 

4.2.1 Predemonstration Activities 

About 3 tons of contaminated soil were excavated from each of the two chromium-contaminated sites. 
After screening to pass through a 1- to 1,5-inch sieve, the soil was placed in drums for initial shipment to 
Chem Pro Inc., the crushing-drying-and-blending facility. At this facility, the soils from the two sites 
were handled separately. Geotech claimed that the soil feed must be sized to a powder to be effectively 
vitrified. Additionally, for the drying furnace feed to operate without clogging, the soil had to be ground 
to approximately 0.375 inch. After removal of the soil from the drums and grinding, the soil was 
screened through a 0.375-inch sieve. In addition, Geotech claimed that the vitrification furnace could not 
handle the large mass of steam that would be produced during treatment of the soil, which was estimated 
to be about 20 percent water. Therefore, the crushed-and-sieved soil was dried to less than 5-percent 
moisture. A continuous-loop or toroidal-flash dryer, operating at 300 to 450 °F (150 to 230 °C) inlet 
temperature with approximately 175°F (80°C) outlet or exhaust temperature, was used to dry the soils. 

A baghouse captured the dust emitted by this drying process. After drying, the soil was mixed with sand 
(to increase the silica content and facilitate vitrification), carbon (to facilitate reduction of metals in the 
mixture), and the dust from the soil-dryer baghouse. The mixing provided a dried, well-blended mixture. 
The dried, blended soil mixture was placed in polypropylene bags (called "supersacs") and transported to 
the Geotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York. 

4.2.2 Demonstration Activities 

The soil collected from NJDEP Site 130 and Liberty State Park was prepared as discussed in Section 
4.2.1 and shipped to the Geotech pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York. Two separate test runs were 
planned, each using the soil from one of the two New Jersey chromium sites. Geotech determined the 
operating conditions for their system based on their vitrification experience and the flow characteristics 
of the molten Mulcoa and contaminated soil. 


40 


The furnace was prepared for each test run by lining it with sand and Mulcoa and then adding 
contaminated soil. The furnace was turned on and when it was at the proper temperature, as determined 
by the characteristics of molten Mulcoa, first molten Mulcoa and then molten soil were tapped and allowed 
to flow into either a water-cooled sluice or into carbon-lined molds for slow cooling and testing. Each of 
the two test runs was planned to last for 10 hours. After all the Mulcoa was vitrified and discharged, 
molten soil samples for analysis were collected at the beginning, middle, and end of each test run. Stack 
gas sample collection was to begin one hour after vitrified soil started to flow from the furnace. 

4.3 SAMPLING PROGRAM 

This section describes procedures for collecting representative samples at each of the 11 EPA SITE 
sampling locations. These locations include sampling points for dryer baghouse dust; carbon additive; 
sand additive; dried, blended soil mixture; vitrification furnace baghouse dust; stack emissions; 
ferrofurnace bottoms; vitrified product; sand added to the vitrification furnace; and Mulcoa. These are 
presented in Table 5. 

4.3.1 Soil Dryer Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S4) 

Soil was collected from two New Jersey chromium sites, placed in drums, and shipped to Chem Pro Inc., 
in Camden, New Jersey, for crushing, sieving, drying, and blending. The drying apparatus included a 
baghouse to collect any particulate dust. The baghouse dust was then blended back into the dried soil. 

Using a plastic scoop, one sample of the baghouse dust was collected for each of the soils being treated. 
These two samples were analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. 

4.3.2 Carbon Additive (Sampling Location S5) 

Carbon powder was used as an additive to the vitrification process to promote reduction of metals in the 
vitrification furnace. The carbon was added to the process during blending of the dried soil. The carbon 
produced by burning methane gas was certified by the producer as pure carbon; nevertheless, one bag of 
carbon was opened and sampled, using a plastic scoop. This sample was analyzed for chromium and 
hexavalent chromium. 


41 


4.3.3 Sand Additive (Sampling Location S6) 


Sand (silica) powder was used as an additive to the vitrification process to promote vitrification in the 
furnace. The sand was added to the process during blending of the dried soil. The sand was certified by the 
producer as pure silicon dioxide; nevertheless, several bags were opened and sampled, using a plastic scoop. 
This composited sample was analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. 

4.3.4 Dried, Blended Soil Mixture (Sampling Location S7) 

The soil was crushed, sieved, dried, and blended with carbon and sand additives and the dust collected in 
the soil-dryer baghouse was then placed in supersacs for transport to the Geotech facility. Four composite 
soil samples were collected from the Site 130 dried, blended soil mixture, and three composite soil 
samples were collected from the Liberty State Park dried, blended soil mixture. Each composite soil 
sample was composited from 10 or 15 grab samples from two or three supersacs, respectively. After each 
supersac was filled, five grab samples were collected by taking five cores over the entire depth of each 
supersac (one core in each corner and a fifth core in the center) using a grain thief; the grab samples were 
then placed in a 2-gallon Ziploc™ bag. Two or three supersacs were sampled and composited in the 
Ziploc™ bag, thoroughly mixed, and placed into appropriate sample containers, resulting in a single 
composite sample. This procedure was repeated for all of the supersacs for both of the soil types. 

Samples were analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. Samples also were extracted by the 
TCLP, and the extract was analyzed for chromium. 

4.3.5 Vitrification Furnace Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S8) 

The vitrification furnace included a baghouse to collect particulate dust from the vitrification furnace. At 
the end of each vitrification test run, the baghouse was shaken down, and all dust was removed. A plastic 
scoop was used to collect three samples of the dust. These samples were analyzed for chromium and 
hexavalent chromium. For each soil, three samples also were extracted using the TCLP, and the extract 
was analyzed for chromium. 


42 


Table 5. Sampling Locations 


Matrix 

Sampling 

Location 

Method of 
Collection 

Purpose 

Soil dryer baghouse 
dust 

S4 

Grab sample 

Determine partitioning of chromium and 
CrA 

Carbon additive 

S5 

Grab sample 

Assess whether additive contains 
chromium or Cr +6 . 

Sand additive 

S6 

Composite sample 

Assess whether additive contains 
chromium or CrA 

Dried, blended soil 
mixture 

S7 

Composite sample 

Determine partitioning of chromium and 
Cr +6 , and RCRA characteristic for 
chromium. 

Vitrification furnace 
baghouse dust 

S8 

Grab sample 

Determine partitioning of chromium and 
CrA and RCRA characteristic for 
chromium. 

Stack emissions 

S9 and S13 

Composite and 
grab samples 

Determine partitioning of chromium and 
CrA the final air emissions of dioxins, 
furans, and trace metals; particulate and 
HC1; and uncontrolled air emissions of 

0 2 , C0 2 , NO x , SO,, CO, and THC. 

Ferrofumace bottoms 

S10 

Grab sample 

Determine partitioning of chromium and 
Cr +6 and RCRA characteristic for 
chromium. 

Vitrified product 

Sll 

Grab sample 

Determine partitioning of chromium and 
Cr +6 and RCRA characteristic for 
chromium. 

Sand added to 
vitrification furnace 

S14 

Grab sample 

Assess whether additive contains 
chromium or CrA 

Mulcoa 

S15 

Grab sample 

Assess whether additive contains 
chromium or Cr +6 . 


Notes: 


CO 

Carbon monoxide 

co 2 

Carbon dioxide 

Cr +6 

Hexavalent chromium 

NO x 

Nitrogen oxides 

o 2 

Oxygen 

so 2 

Sulfur dioxide 

THC 

Total hydrocarbons 

RCRA 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 


43 



















4.3.6 Stack Gas (Sampling Locations S13 and S9) 


Stack gas sampling occurred at two locations in the APCS; the first location was at the baghouse inlet 
(Sampling Location SI3), and the other location was at the baghouse outlet (Sampling Location S9). 
Furthermore, sampling was conducted at two places at Sampling Location S9: upstream (Sampling Location 
S9A) and downstream (Sampling Location S9B) of the induced draft (ID) fan. These sampling locations are 
discussed below. 

4.3.6.1 Sampling Location S13 - Vitrification Hood Exhaust - APCS Inlet 

The vitrification unit exfiaust was modified to provide a sampling location meeting the minimum 
requirements of EPA Method 1. A circular duct, with a diameter of 15 inches, was inserted horizontally 
between the vitrification hood and the APCS. Three sampling locations were placed on this length of duct 
so that upstream and downstream disturbances could be minimized. A schematic of the circular duct 
showing the sampling locations is presented in Figure 5. Sampling ports were located on the bottom and the 
side of the duct. Sampling was conducted using a 2 by 6 sampling matrix (12 sampling points in each 
sampling axis) at all locations. The stack-emissions traverse layout, determined following EPA procedures, 
is shown in Figure 6 and the locations presented in Table 6. 

4.3.6.2 Sampling Location S9A and B - APCS Outlet 

Sampling was performed at the APCS outlet before and after the ID fan for Run 1 and before the ID fan for 
Run 2. The Method 23 sampling train at the APCS outlet was eliminated for dioxins and furans during Run 
2 because the results from Run 1 were nearly identical, as expected, for both locations. Sampling was 
conducted at both locations using a 2 by 6 sampling matrix. More information regarding traverse points is 
presented in Table 6. 


44 




45 


Figure 5. Sampling Locations S13 in Circular Duct after Vitrification Furnace 









46 


Figure 6. Traverse Point Layout for Sampling Locations S13 and S9 










S9A - Upstream of the ID Fan 


Sampling was performed on the upstream side of the ID fan through two ports 90° to one another on an 18- 
inch-diameter vertical duct exiting the APCS. Prior to the test program, a "honeycomb" flow straightener 
was inserted between this sampling location and the ID fan to eliminate any swirl or cyclonic flow that may 
be imparted on the flue gas by the ID fan. The nearest downstream disturbance was the bend before the ID 
fan, which was 36 inches away (2 diameters), and the nearest upstream disturbance was the APCS, which 
w as 49 inches away (2.7 diameters). Figure 7 illustrates the layout of the location. Prior to testing, flow in 
this duct was checked for cyclonic flow, and none was found to be present at greater than 20°. 

S9B - Downstream of the ID Fan 

Sampling was performed on the downstream side of the ID fan through two ports 90° to one another on a 15- 
inch-diameter vertical duct exhausting to atmosphere. The nearest upstream disturbance was the ID fan, 
which was 51 inches away (3.4 diameters), and the nearest downstream disturbance was a bend in the duct, 
which was 20 inches away (1.3 diameters). The location is shown in Figure 7. Prior to testing, the flow 
was checked and no significant swirl was found to be present at greater than 20°. 


Table 6. Traverse Point Location in Inches from Duct Wall 


Traverse Points 

Sampling Locations S13 and 

S9B (15-Inch Diameter) 

Sampling Location S9A 

(18-Inch Diameter) 

1 and 12 

0.31 

0.38 

2 and 11 

1.0 

1.21 

3 and 10 

1.77 

2.12 

4 and 9 

2.66 

3.19 

5 and 8 

3.75 

4.5 

6 and 7 

5.34 

6.4 


47 














TO 

ATMOSPHERE 


FROM 

BAGHOUSE 



20 

INCHES 


P 


51 

INCHES 


<-15 INCHES-* 


\ 


7 


ID 

FAN 



49 

INCHES 


18 INCHES 



S9A 


36 

INCHES 


FLOW 

STRAIGHTENER 



y 


AIR FLOW 


y 


Figure 7. Sampling Locations S9A and S9B in the APCS Outlet 


48 


































4.3.7 Ferrofurnace Bottoms (Sampling Location S10) 


During a test run, a dense vitrified product, referred to as ferrofurnace bottoms, may collect in the bottom 
ot the vitrification furnace. These ferrofurnace bottoms may separate from the vitrified product because 
of greater density. No ferrofurnace bottoms were produced during the Site 130 demonstration. About 
200 pounds of ferrofurnace bottoms were manually removed after the Liberty State Park demonstration. 

A sample of ferrofurnace bottoms was collected, sized to pass a 0.375-inch sieve, and mixed. The 
sample was analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. TCLP extraction, followed by chromium 
analyses of the extracts, was also performed. 

4.3.8 Vitrified Product (Sampling Location SI 1) 

During each test run, a vitrified product was produced and tapped from the middle of the vitrification 
furnace. This vitrified product was placed into insulated molds, where it was allowed to cool slowly, 
forming solid castings of vitrified product. To obtain representative samples, three complete castings, 
one each from the beginning, middle, and end of each of the test-run pours, were labeled and transported 
to NJIT by NJDEP personnel. Because the vitrified product may separate according to density, samples 
from various locations in each of the castings for each test run were collected and ground to pass a 
200-mesh sieve (75 micrometers [urn] [0.0029 in.]). The samples of ground material were shipped to the 
analytical laboratory for chromium and hexavalent chromium analysis and TCLP extraction, followed by 
chromium analyses of the extracts. 

4.3.9 Sand Added to Vitrification Furnace (Sampling Location S14) 

Sand was added to the vitrification furnace before system startup to protect the bottom of the furnace and 
to help with the entrapment and separation of molten metals that might form from the high concentration 
of iron in the treatment soil and the reducing conditions of the furnace. One sample of sand was 
collected from a freshly opened bag using a plastic scoop. This sample was analyzed for chromium and 
hexavalent chromium. 


49 


4.3.10 Mulcoa (Sampling Location S15) 


Mulcoa was added to the vitrification furnace before system startup to allow calibration of the heat input 
to the furnace. Using a plastic scoop, one sample of Mulcoa was collected from a freshly opened bag 
and analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. 

4.3.11 Sample Mass Measurements 

The masses of waste and product streams were determined as follows: 


Site 

Carbon 

Sand 

Dried 

Blended Soil 
Mixture 

Vitrification 
Baghouse Dust 

Ferrofumace 

Bottoms 

Vitrified 

Product 

Site 130 

148 lb 

1,8301b 

9,298 lb 

4.5 lb 

— 

NR 

Liberty State Park 

100 lb 

1,226 lb 

6,226 lb 

20 lb 

200 lb 

NR 


Notes: 

Ferrofumace bottoms were not generated during vitrification of Site 130 soil, 
lb = Pounds 
NR = Not recorded 

The sand and Mulcoa were added to the vitrification furnace prior to placing the dried, blended soil 
mixture in the furnace. The masses of the sand and Mulcoa were not measured and are not included in 
the above table. Sand was added as thermal insulation to protect the furnace walls. According to 
Geotech, little or no sand was removed from the furnace when the vitrified soil was tapped. Mulcoa was 
added to allow the system operators to calibrate the energy input to the furnace. According to Geotech, 
once the Mulcoa was vitrified, it was completely tapped from the furnace before demonstration testing 
occurred. 

There are some discrepancies in the weight of the dried, blended soil mixtures. Measurements 
indicated that approximately 6,000 pounds of soil were collected at each site, yet when this soil was 
crushed, dried, and amended with a very small amount of carbon and 25 percent sand, over 9,000 pounds 
of material resulted for Site 130 but only 6,000 pounds for Liberty State Park. These masses were 


50 












weighed as the dried, blended soil mixtures were readied for shipping to the vitrification facility as a part 
ot the SITE demonstration and are accurate. Clearly there is a discrepancy that the SITE program has not 
been able to resolve. Possibilities include other material being mixed in with the Site 130 soil, extra sand 
having been added, or other mistakes. For this reason, along with various operational changes to the 
Cold Top system, we have concluded that calculation of an accurate mass balance is not possible. 

4.4 DEMONSTRATION RESULTS 

This section summarizes sampling data collected during the SITE demonstration. Due to the lack of 
certainty of the mass of the dried, blended soil mixture (see Section 4.3.11); changes to the furnace 
APCS between the two test runs (see Section 4.4.5.0); and the unexpected system shutdown early in the 
first test run (see Section 4.4.5.1), all demonstration data are considered to be observational data. 
Observational data are data that are adequate to make rough comparisons of results but not adequate to 
meet the high degree of confidence specified in the SITE demonstration project objectives. 

4.4.1 RCRA TCLP Chromium Standard 

The Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from the two New Jersey sites, 
producing a product meeting the RCRA TCLP chromium standard (see Tables 7 and 8). Vitrification of 
soil from one of the two sites also produced ferrofurnace bottoms, a potentially recyclable metallic 
product, that also met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard. 

4.4.2 Chromium 

With the exception of the vitrification-baghouse-dust and the ferrofurnace-bottoms samples, chromium 
content of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soil. 

The concentrations of chromium in the vitrification-baghouse-dust and ferrofurnace-bottoms samples 
were about two and five times greater, respectively, than those found in the untreated soils. These data 
are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. 


51 


Table 7. Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Site 130 



o 

cn 


■*—* 
c/5 

E 

o 


o 

CO 


c 

o 

•*—» 

Cd 

O 

s 

■ > ^ 
> OX) 

<D C 

x: c 
~ o 
E «/•) 

£ 

4— 

T3 E 

<D Z3 

cj • — 

3 E 
■§ 2 
k-g 

ofe 

C 4-i 
<D 


4) 

£ 

CO 

E 

o 

e 

o 

JD 

0> 

o 

CO 

E 

a 

o 

fc 

u_ 


T3 
0) 

CJ 

. <u 

■n Z 
c ^ 

H co 
5 CO 


o 

< 

<u 

> 

o 

o 

<u 

Qi 


cd 

"O 

c 

l- 

<D 

CL 

C/3 

E 

3 

E 

cd 


c 

cd 

c 

03 
■*— > 
C/3 

Cd 

£ 

E 

o 

i— 

0X) 

o 

u. 

o 

-*—* 
cd 

cu 

J 

C/3 

-C 

CJ 

12 

■4—* 

> 

<u 

U 

H 

Cd 

r— 

■ 4 —* 

C 

>— 

<U 

Cl 

u- 

<L> 

CL 

CO 

C 

O 


— 

cd 

CO 

C/3 

co 

U 

& 

<u 

> 

E 

E 

<D 

U 

c 

co 

X 

cd 

■— 

cd 

u- 

o 

0^ 


0) 

op 

op 

3 




c o 
O Z 


2 2 


l_i 

3 

-a 

<D 

a 
o 

i_ 

CL 

ox) 

c 

IE 

o 

CO 

J2 

u 
-*-* 
c .2 

.2 U 

■ 4 _- -*— • 

CO <J 
• — CO 

> L. 

<u co 
n x; 

L - 1 CJ 

! * 
-O o 

S x 
+-• o 

on H 


, <! cl 

^ ^ _j 

g Q U 

E E oC tn f— 


CO 

4> 

+-» 

o 

2 


52 































Table 8. Contaminant Concentrations in Samples From Liberty State Park 


<j 
s 
-o 

o 

Cl 

-o 

© 

E 

'u 


5/5 

E 

© 

O 

ea 

0) 

© 

3 

s 

u 

5 = 
© 
u 

La 

© 

U. 


Q 

OO 


c 

03 

© 


03 

o 


5/5 


3 

03 © 


Q 

c/o 


c 

03 

© 


03 

© 


C/5 


o3 © 

© Qi 

< 


ON 

o 


© 


oo 

NO 


CN 


fS 

ON 


ri 


ON 

m 

o 

V 


o 

V 


oo 


NO 


(N 

<N 




V 


O © 

V V 


r- 

»T/ 

o 

o 

fO 

*N 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 


o 

o 

ON 

«/) 


o 

o 

ON 

■^t 


o 

o 

r\ 

o 

m 


o 

o 

oo 

r. 

r- 

r~) 


© 

o 

tn 

r 

ON 


C/5 

© 

— 

© 

5/5 

3 

© 

-3 

©JD 

ea 

3 

_© 

© 


Q 

GO 


C 

03 

© 


00 

ID 


© 

S’3 

03 © 

c o S 

< 


<N 


O 

NO 

r*N 


O 

o 

o 

rs 

NO 


© 

C/5 

-a 

© 

© 

U* 


Q 

00 


© 

© 


rO 

©n 

ra 


o 

<s 


o 

o 

ON 


o 

ro 

IT) 

o 

o 

ON 

NO 


03 

C/D 

© 

■*—* 
_>5 

C/D 

03 

<U 

3 

a: 

< 



NO 

<N 


O 

ro 


CN 

ro 


O 

NO 

r- 


o 

cn 

ON 


O 

OO 

ON 


o 

o 

m 

rs 

NO 


o 

o 


o 

o 

CO 

r-' 


c 

3 

C 

*■ 

c 

3 

C 

© 

U 


Cl 


E 

3 

E 

o 

r— 

U 


J 

'Sx 


c 

_© 

03 

> 

03 

X 

© 


E 

3 

£ 

o 

l. 

-e 

O 


ox 

'ox 

E 


£ 

3 


_C 

U 


ox 

"ox 

E 


J 

'Sx 

E 




E 

.2 -6 

E 52 

O © 

u. . © 

f= ■© © 

<-> © -O 
u. E 

o E £ 

P-g S 

l3 « 6 

T3 

C 5/5 
03 03 

ts £ 


© 

< 

© 

> 

o 

© 

© 

cC 

T3 

C 

03 


3 

□ 

C3 


C 

E 

■— 

&X) 


o 

o 

u, 

o 

i— 

<D 


JO 

© 

^2 

■ 4 —* 

U 

<D 

t . 

t— 

U. 

C/D 

c 

<D 

a-) 

c 

<D 

a- 

Cu 

O 


© 

I— 

3 

•o 

© 

© 

o 


oo 

c 

!E 

© 

03 

© 


5/1 5/5 (J> 

EE© 

03 03 © 

l-.l-.l-i 

OX 00 3 
E E O 

HI 


C 

.2 © 
03 O 

•r* & 

<U 03 

n ^ 

1 o 


£ 
© 

’* 
_ o 

GO H 


03 

-a 

c 

03 


00 <C CL 

^ ^ K 3 

oo oo O Q O 

E E * c7j H 


c/d 

<D 
■*—> 

O 

z 


53 
































4.4.3 Hexavalent Chromium 


Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the ferrofurnace-bottoms samples and was only detected in 
one of six vitrified-product samples (see Tables 7 and 8). 

Hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one-half to about the same concentration in the 
vitrification-baghouse dust as in the untreated soil. The baghouse dust was presumed to be mainly 
fine-sized, untreated soil that was carried over from the dust caused by introducing the dried, blended soil 
mixture into the vitrification furnace and carried through the APCS. 

4.4.4 NJDEP Soil Cleanup Standards 

Comparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP soil cleanup standards 
indicated that the vitrified product met the non-residential soils standard for hexavalent chromium, 
antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium, but not for chromium. For residential soils the 
vitrified product met the NJDEP standard for hexavalent chromium, beryllium, and possibly cadmium, 
but not for chromium, antimony, nickel, and vanadium. Table 9 presents the metal concentrations found 
in the vitrified products from each site and the NJDEP soil cleanup standards for non-residential areas. 

4.4.5 Stack Emissions 

The test program consisted of two separate runs. Sampling for chromium and hexavalent chromium was 
completed at Sampling Locations S9 and SI3 during both runs. Method 23 was completed at Sampling 
Locations S9A and SI3 during Run 1 and at Sampling Location S13 for Run 2. Method 23 sampling was 
not conducted during Run 2 at Sampling Location S9 because the dioxin and furan results from Run 1 
were similar, as expected from their proximity. Method 29 sampling was completed at S9 during both 
Runs 1 and 2. CEM measurements for oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and 
sulfur dioxide were taken during Runs 1 and 2 at Sampling Location SI3. Although not a planned 
measurement, during Run 2 total hydrocarbon (THC) CEM measurements were also taken at Sampling 
Location SI3. 


54 


Table 9. New Jersey Soil Cleanup Standards 



Vitrified Product (mg/kg) 

New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria 1 (mg/kg) 


Site 130 

Liberty State Park 

Residential 

Non-Residential 

Chromium 

5500 

10,000 

500 2 

500 2 

Hexavalent 

chromium 

<0.41 

<0.39 to 1.8 3 

10 2 

10 2 

Antimony 

61 

29 

14 

340 

Beryllium 

<0.80 

<0.78 

l 4 

l 4 

Cadmium 

<2.2 

<2.1 

1 

100 

Nickel 

420 

1,600 

250 

2,400 5,6 

Vanadium 

380 

440 

370 

7,100 s 


Notes: 

State of New Jersey Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:23E), Criteria for 
Residential and Non-Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup and Impact to Groundwater, revised 
July 11, 1996. 

2 Currently under revision. 

Values range from below detection limit (0.39 to 0.41 mg/kg) for five samples to 1.8 mg/kg for 
one sample. 

4 This health-based criteria is lower than analytical limits; the cleanup criteria is based on practical 

quantitation level. 

The level of the human health based criterion is such that evaluation for potential environmental 
impacts on a site-by-site basis is recommended. 

This criterion is based on the inhalation exposure pathway which yielded a more stringent 
criterion than the incidental ingestion pathway. 

ND Not defined. 


4.4.5.1 Field Test Changes 


Run 1 


A process upset occurred midway through the Run 1 test, and only one of the two required traverses was 
completed. Because of the incomplete test, the data throughout this report have been qualified as 
observational due to this sampling deviation. 


55 
















Post-test calibrations were conducted on two probes with suspect pitot calibrations. A leak in the pitot 
tubes that was missed during initial calibrations was found prior to sampling. On the sampling run sheet 
for Method Cr +6 (hexavalent chromium) at Sampling Location SI3, the pitot tube calibration was 0.876 
and the post-test calibration value was 0.848. This latter value was used for all calculations. On the 
sampling run sheet for Method Cr +6 at Sampling Location S9A, the pitot tube calibration was 0.880 and 
the post-test calibration value was 0.823. This latter value was used for all calculations. 

Run 2 


Prior to the start of Run 2, a damper in the duct connecting the vitrification furnace hood to the APCS 
was opened by the technology developer. The sampling team were not aware of this deviation, which 
allowed much more dilution air to enter the APCS. All results from Run 2, while analytically sound, 
were not obtained with the system operating under the same conditions as the Run 1 results. The Run 2 
results should also be considered observational. 

4.4.5.2 Results of Critical Parameters—Fluegas 

Tables 10 and 11 present chromium and hexavalent chromium results at Sampling Locations S13 and 
S9A. 

4.4.5.3 Results of Non-Critical Parameters—Fluegas 

Tables 12 through 17 present concentrations and emission rate results, as well as measurement 
parameters, for non-critical parameters, including dioxins and furans, trace metals, particulate, and 
hydrogen chloride gas (HC1) at Sampling Locations S13 and S9A. 


56 



Table 10. Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S13 


Parameter 

Unit 

Site 130 

Liberty State Park 

Cr" 6 Concentration, uncorrected 

mg/dscm 

3.22 

0.503 

Cr~ 6 Concentration @ 7% 0 2 

mg/dscm 

195 

77.7 

Cr +6 Emission rate 

g/hr 

6.02 

2.17 

Chromium concentration, 
uncorrected 

mg/dscm 

24.4 

7.43 

Chromium concentration @ 7% 

o 2 

mg/dscm 

1,480 

1,150 

Chromium emission rate 

g/hr 

45.7 

32.0 

Moisture content 

% 

2.69 

1.35 

Isokinetic variation 

% 

102 1 

97.4 

Dry gas volume 

dscm 

1.05 

3.80 

Fluegas temperature 

°F 

137 

81.5 

Velocity 

ft/s 

17.7 

36.0 

Stack gas flow rate 

dscm/hr 

1,870 

4,310 

Oxygen content 

%V 

20.7 

20.8 

Carbon dioxide content 

%V 

0.64 

0.34 


i 

Based on an incomplete test run 

Cr +6 

Hexavalent chromium 

dscm/hr 

Dry standard cubic meter per hour 

g/hr 

Grams per hour 

mg/dcsm 

Milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 

o 2 

Oxygen 

%v 

Percent by volume 


57 




















Table 11. Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S9A 


Parameter 

Unit 

Site 130 

Liberty State 
Park 

Cr +6 Concentration, 
uncorrected 

/ig/dscm 

0.321 

-0.322 1 

Cr +6 Concentration @ 7% 0 2 

/ig/dscm 

20.3 

-56.0 1 

Cr +6 Emission rate 

yug/hr 

729 

-1,410 1 

Chromium concentration, 
uncorrected 

yWg/dscm 

2.59 

13.7 

Chromium concentration @ 

7% 0 2 

//g/dscm 

164 

2,380 

Chromium emission rate 

yug/hr 

5,900 

60100 

Moisture content 

% 

2.86 

0.751 

Isokinetic variation 

% 

104 2 

95.0 

Dry gas volume 

dscm 

1.41 

2.61 

Fluegas temperature 

°F 

102 

74.1 

Velocity 

ft/s 

14.1 

24.9 

Stack gas flow rate 

dscm/hr 

2,270 

4,380 

Oxygen content 

%V 

20.7 

20.8 

Carbon dioxide content 

%V 

0.61 

0.34 


Notes: 


i 

Negative numbers due to sample dilution 

2 

Based upon an incomplete test run 

Cr +6 

Hexavalent chromium 

dscm 

Dry standard cubic meter 

ft/s 

Feet per second 

o 2 

Oxygen 

^g/dscm 

Microgram per dry standard cubic meter 

yug/hr 

Microgram per hour 

%V 

Percent by volume 


58 





















Table 12. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Parameters 


Parameter 

Unit 

Sampling Location S13 

Sampling 
Location S9A 

Site 130 

Liberty State 
Park 

Site 130 

Moisture content 

% 

4.84 

1.31 

4.21 

Isokinetic variation 

% 

99.0 1 

96.5 

104 1 

Dry gas volume 

dscm 

1.10 

2.60 

1.07 

Fluegas temperature 

°F 

129 

82.7 

103 

Velocity 

ft/s 

16.8 

38.9 

14.4 

Stack gas flow rate 

dscm/hr 

1,760 

4,650 

2,300 

Oxygen content 

%V 

20.7 

20.8 

20.7 

Carbon dioxide content 

%V 

0.61 

0.34 

0.61 


Notes: 


Based on an incomplete test run 
dscm Dry standard cubic meter 

dscm/hr Dry standard cubic meter per hour 

ft/s Feet per second 

%V Percent by volume 


59 

















Table 13. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentration at 7 Percent Oxygen 




Sampling Location S13 

Sampling 
Location S9A 

Parameter 

Unit 

Site 130 

Liberty State 
Park 

Site 130 

2,3,7,8-TCDF 

ng/dscm 

58 

Q, 7.6 

J, 2.2 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 

ng/dscm 

ND, 9.7 

ND, 4.6 

ND, 2.6 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 

ng/dscm 

28 

J, C, 4.0 

J, 1.7 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 

ng/dscm 

Q, 31 

J, 4.5 

J, 1.8 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 

ng/dscm 

Q, 8.0 

J, Q, 2.6 

ND, 2.2 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 

ng/dscm 

J, C, 64 

J, Q, 5.9 

J, 1.9 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 

ng/dscm 

Q, 24 

J, Q, 2.8 

J, Q, 1-1 

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 

ng/dscm 

20 

J, 3.6 

J, 0.82 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 

ng/dscm 

J, 4.4 

ND, 2.7 

ND, 1.0 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 

ng/dscm 

J, 6.6 

ND, 3.9 

ND, 3.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 

ng/dscm 

J, Q, 8.9 

J, 2.1 

ND, 3.0 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 

ng/dscm 

J, 14 

J, 2.1 

ND, 2.8 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 

ng/dscm 

76 

J, 8.8 

J, 2.6 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 

ng/dscm 

J, 7.6 

ND, 4.4 

ND, 2.0 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 

ng/dscm 

48 

J, 10 

J, Q, 1-7 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF 

ng/dscm 

34 

J, 7.9 

J, Q, 2.0 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD 

ng/dscm 

J, Q, 290 

b, 79 

J, Q, 10 

Total TCDF 

ng/dscm 

J, Q, 920 

Q, 78 

Q, 38 

Total PeCDF 

ng/dscm 

Q, 470 

J, Q, 48 

J, Q, 13 

Total HxCDF 

ng/dscm 

Q, 250, 

J, Q, 28 

J, Q, 7.4 

Total HpCDF 

ng/dscm 

Q, 100 

J, 10 

J, 2.7 

Total TCDD 

ng/dscm 

Q, 57, 

Q, 14 

J, Q, 2.8 

Total PeCDD 

ng/dscm 

Q, 47 

J, Q, 14 

J, Q, 1-3 

Total HxCDD 

ng/dscm 

Q, 65 

J, Q, 20 

J, 2.1 

Total HpCDD 

ng/dscm 

93 

J, 21 

J, Q, 3.1 

Minimum 2,3,7,8-TCDD 
TEQ (not including ND) 
Maximum 2,3,7,8- 

ng/dscm 

>39 

>5.3 

>1.2 

TCDD TEQ (including 
ND) 

ng/dscm 

<56 

<13 

<6.8 


60 

















Table 13 (Continued). Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentration at 7 Percent Oxygen 


Notes: 


b 

C 

HpCDD 

HpCDF 

HxCDD 

HxCDF 

J 

ND 

ng/dscm 

PeCDD 

PeCDF 

OCDD 

OCDF 

Q 

TCDD 

TCDF 

TEQ 


Estimated result/result is less than reporting limit 

Co-eluting isomer 

Heptachloro dibenzodioxins 

Heptachloro dibenzofuranss 

Hexachloro dibenzodioxins 

Hexachloro dibenzofurans 

Detected at less than laboratory reporting limit, result is considered an estimate 

Not detected, value reported is the detection limit 

Nanogram per dry standard cubic meter 

Pentachloro dibenzodioxins 

Pentachloro dibenzofurans 

Octachloro dibenzodioxins 

Octachloro dibenzofurans 

Estimated maximum possible concentration 

Tetrachloro dibenzodioxins 

Tetrachloro dibenzofurans 

Toxicity equivalency factor 


61 


Table 14. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates 




Sampling Location S13 

Sampling 
Location S9A 

Parameter 

Unit 

Site 130 

Liberty State 
Park 

Site 130 

2,3,7,8-TCDF 

/ig/hr 

1.6 

Q, 0.22 

J, 0.079 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 

/ug/hr 

ND, 0.27 

ND, 0.14 

ND, 0.093 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 

/ug/hr 

0.79 

J,C, 0.12 

J, 0.062 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 

/ig/hr 

Q, 0.85 

J, 0.13 

J, 0.067 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 

/ig/hr 

Q, 0.22 

J, Q, 0.08 

ND, 0.080 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 

A^g/hr 

Q, C, 1.8 

J, Q, 0.18 

J, 0.068 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 

Mg/hr 

Q, 0.66 

J, Q, 0.084 

J, Q, 0.039 

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 

Mg/hr 

0.57 

J, 0.11 

J, 0.030 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 

yug/hr 

J, 0.12 

ND, 0.08 

ND, 0.037 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 

A^g/hr 

J, 0.18 

ND, 0.12 

ND, 0.11 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 

A^g/hr 

J, Q, 0.25 

J, 0.060 

ND, 0.11 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 

Mg/hr 

J, 0.39 

J, 0.070 

ND, 0.10 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-PhCDF 

/ugfhr 

2.1 

J, 0.27 

J, 0.096 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 

A^g/hr 

J, 0.21 

ND, 0.13 

ND, 0.073 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 

Mg/hr 

1.3 

J, 0.31 

J, Q, 0.062 

1,2,,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF 

A^g/hr 

0.95 

J, 0.24 

J, Q, 0.073 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD 

A^g/hr 

J, Q, 8.0 

b, 2.4 

J, Q, 0.37 

Total TCDF 

A^g/hr 

J, Q, 26 

Q, 2.4 

Q, T4 

Total PeCDF 

/ig/hr 

Q, 13 

J, Q, 1.5 

J, Q, 0.45 

Total HxCDF 

A^g/hr 

Q, 7.0 

J, Q, 0.84 

J, Q, 0.27 

Total HpCDF 

Mg/hr 

Q, 2.9 

J, 0.30 

J, 0.098 

Total TCDD 

yug/hr 

Q, 1.6 

Q, 0.42 

J, Q, 0.10 

Total PeCDD 

A^g/hr 

Q, 1-3 

J, Q, 0.42 

J, Q, 0.047 

Total HxCDD 

yug/hr 

Q, 1-8 

J, Q, 0.61 

J, 0.075 

Total HpCDD 

yug/hr 

2.6 

J, 0.63 

J, Q, 0.11 

Minimum 2,3,7,8-TCDD 

yug/hr 

>1.1 

>0.16 

>0.043 

TEQ (not including ND) 
Maximum 2,3,7,8-TCDD 
TEQ (including ND) 

yug/hr 

<1.5 

<0.39 

<0.25 


62 

















Table 14 (Continued). Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates 


Notes: 


b 

Estimated result/result is less than reporting limit 

C 

HpCDD 

HpCDF 

HxCDD 

HxCDF 

J 

ptg/hr 

ND 

PeCDD 

PeCDF 

OCDD 

OCDF 

Q 

TCDD 

TCDF 

TEQ 

Co-eluting isomer 

Heptachloro dibenzodioxins 

Heptachloro dibenzofurans 

Hexachloro dibenzodioxins 

Hexachloro dibenzofurans 

Detected at less than laboratory reporting limit, result is considered an estimate 
micrograms per hour 

Not detected, value reported is the detection limit 

Pentachloro dibenzodioxins 

Pentachloro dibenzofurans 

Octachloro dibenzodioxins 

Octachloro dibenzofurans 

Estimated maximum possible concentration 

Tetrachloro dibenzodioxins 

Tetrachloro dibenzofurans 

Toxicity equivalency factor 


63 


Table 15. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Average Fluegas Values 


Parameter 

Unit 

Sampling 
Location S9B 

Sampling Location 
S9A 

Site 130 

Liberty State Park 

Moisture content 

% 

3.41 

1.21 

Isokinetic variation 

% 

107 1 

96.7 

Dry gas volume 

dscm 

1.06 

1.43 

Fluegas temperature 

°F 

98.2 

72.6 

Velocity 

ft/s 

19.5 

25.8 

Stack gas flow rate 

dscm/hr 

2,250 

4,530 

Oxygen content 

%V 

20.7 

20.8 

Carbon dioxide content 

%V 

0.61 

0.34 


Notes: 


1 Based on an incomplete test run 

dscm Dry standard cubic meter 

dscm/hr Dry standard cubic meter per hour 

ft/s Feet per second 

%V Percent by volume 


64 















Table 16. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas 
Concentrations at 7 Percent Oxygen 




Sampling Location 

Sampling Location 



S9B 

S9A 

Parameter 

Units 

Site 130 

Liberty State Park 

Antimony 

mg/dscm 

2.46 

1.86 

Arsenic 

mg/dscm 

<10.7 

<12.8 

Barium 

mg/dscm 

6.81 

7.7 

Beryllium 

mg/dscm 

<0.179 

<0.214 

Cadmium 

mg/dscm 

<0.179 

0.088B 

Chromium 

mg/dscm 

0.394 

0.421 

Cobalt 

mg/dscm 

<1.79 

<2.14 

Copper 

mg/dscm 

1.11 

0.564 

Lead 

mg/dscm 

15.0 

3.97 

Manganese 

mg/dscm 

1.80 

<0.64 

Mercury 

mg/dscm 

<0.314 

<0.378 

Nickel 

mg/dscm 

1.11 

<1.71 

Selenium 

mg/dscm 

<8.96 

<10.7 

Silver 

mg/dscm 

<0.358 

<0.428 

Thallium 

mg/dscm 

<71.6 

<85.7 

Vanadium 

mg/dscm 

1.39 

<2.14 

Zinc 

mg/dscm 

23.0 

2.97 


Particulate 

mg/dscm 

1,130 

425 


Hydrogen 
chloride gas 

mg/dscm 

<12.3 

<5.72 


Notes: 

B Blank contamination 

mg/dscm Milligram per dry standard cubic meter 

< Not detected, value reported is detection limit 


65 


















Table 17. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Mass Emission Rates 


Parameter 

Units 

Sampling 

Sampling Location 



Location S9B 

S9A 



Site 130 

Liberty State Park 

Antimony 

mg/hr 

87.6 

48.6 

Arsenic 

mg/hr 

<383 

<335 

Barium 

mg/hr 

242 

201 

Beryllium 

mg/hr 

<6.38 

<5.59 

Cadmium 

mg/hr 

<6.38 

2.29B 

Chromium 

mg/hr 

14.0 

11.0 

Cobalt 

mg/hr 

<63.8 

<55.9 

Copper 

mg/hr 

39.6 

14.7 

Lead 

mg/hr 

533 

104 

Manganese 

mg/hr 

64.0 

<16.6 

Mercury 

mg/hr 

<11.2 

<9.87 

Nickel 

mg/hr 

39.6 

<44.7 

Selenium 

mg/hr 

<319 

<279 

Silver 

mg/hr 

<12.8 

<11.2 

Thallium 

mg/hr 

<2550 

<2230 

Vanadium 

mg/hr 

49.6 

<55.9 

Zinc 

mg/hr 

820 

77.5 


Particulate 

g/hr 

40.2 

11.1 


Hydrogen 
chloride gas 

mg/hr 

<438 

149 


Notes: 


B Blank contamination 

g/hr Grams per hour 

mg/hr Milligrams per hour 

< Not detected, value reported is detection limit 


66 



















4.4.S.4 Continuous Emissions Monitoring 


In order to determine the uncontrolled air emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 
sulfur dioxide, and THC from the vitrification unit, on-line CEMs were used. For both Run 1 and Run 2, 
the CEMs were extracting uncontrolled exhaust gases at sampling location SI3. The gases being analyzed 
during Run 1 were carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide. 
Additionally, THC was analyzed during Run 2 to determine if the high carbon monoxide that was 
encountered during Run 1 was the result of incomplete combustion of any organic compounds in the soil. 
Table 18 presents the CEM sampling matrix. 


Table 18. CEM Sampling Matrix at Location S13 



Run 1 

Run 2 

Nitrogen oxides 

X 

X 

Sulfur dioxide 

X 

X 

Carbon monoxide 

X 

X 

Total hydrocarbons 


X 

Oxygen 

X 

X 

Carbon dioxide 

X 

X 

Run time 

15:16-16:02 

10:29-18:00 


During Run 1 the CEMs were on-line only during the time that was spent pouring the molds from the 
vitrification unit. During Run 2 the CEMs were on-line for the entire vitrification process. Figure 8a-c 
and Figure 9a-c illustrate the results of Run 1 and Run 2 respectively. Table 19 shows the averages of the 
flue gas concentrations for each gas for Run 1. Table 20 shows the average flue gas concentration for 
each of the gases with the damper open and closed (see Section 4.4.5.1) during Run 2. 


67 












s? 

C 

V 

00 

>% 


Figure 8a. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide—RUN 1 



Time 


1.60 

1.40 

1.20 § 

TOO | 

0.80 | 

0.60 § 
-£ 

0.40 £ 

0.20 

0.00 


Oxygen 

Carbon Dioxide 



Time __ 

-Oxides of Nitrogen 

.Sulfur Dioxide 


Figure 8c. Carbon Monoxide—RUN 1 



Time 


Carbon Monoxide 


Figure 8. Run 1 Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulfur Dioxide, THC and Carbon Monoxide 
CEM Data 


68 




































Figure 9a. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide—RUN 2 



1.4 


1.2 

£ 

1.0 

a j 
JO 

0.8 

Q 

0.6 

5 

0.4 

a 

o 

0.2 

-2 

U 

0.0 

u 



Figure 9. Run 2 Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulfur Dioxide, THC and Carbon Monoxide 
CEM Data 


69 





























Table 19. CEMs-Run 1 



Entire Sampling Time 

(15:16-16:02) 

During Mold Pour Only 

(15:16-15:40) 

Contaminant 

Average 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Average 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Nitrogen oxides 

5.51 

26.3 

2.69 

7.11 

26.3 

3.85 

Sulfur dioxide 

29.6 

116 

1.70 

46.2 

116 

21.6 

Carbon monoxide 

282 

725 

95.4 

398 

725 

180 

Total hydrocarbons 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Oxygen 

20.7 

20.8 

20.3 

20.7 

20.8 

20.3 

Carbon dioxide 

0.49 

1.5 

0.21 

0.63 

1.5 

0.41 


Table 20. CEMs-Run 2 



Damper Open 

(10:29-17:10) 

Damper Closed 

(17:11-18:00) 

Contaminant 

Average 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Average 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Nitrogen oxides 

0.96 

4.67 

0.00 

2.32 

3.81 

1.19 

Sulfur dioxide 

0.15 

0.49 

0.00 

0.49 

0.49 

0.33 

Carbon monoxide 

547 

2650 

142 

1770 

8490 

469 

Total hydrocarbons 

5.39 

21.3 

2.01 

18.7 

29.0 

10.4 

Oxygen 

20.8 

20.9 

20.4 

20.6 

20.9 

20.3 

Carbon dioxide 

0.30 

0.62 

0.14 

0.77 

1.2 

0.19 


The decrease in the flue gas concentrations of the contaminants that is evident from Run 1 to Run 2 was 
caused by an open damper during the beginning of Run 2. This open damper allowed more dilution air to 
enter upstream of sampling location SI 3, thereby reducing the concentration of the contaminants. At the 
completion of the manual methods sampling this damper was closed as is noted on Figures 9a-c. When 


70 
































the damper was closed the concentration of each of the gases increased to values similar to Run 1 with the 
notable exception of carbon monoxide which increased to approximately tenfold the carbon monoxide 
concentration of Run 1. 

4.4.5.5 Compliance with NYSDEC 

Flue gas sampling was conducted at Sampling Location S9 to determine adherence to the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) guidelines for air emissions. Trace metals, 
chromium, and hexavalent chromium were sampled during Runs 1 and 2. Dioxins and furans were 
sampled at location S9A during Run 1. Dioxin and furan results from Run 1 were much lower than 
expected, theretore, the more conservative dioxin and furan results from SI3 were used during Run 2. 
Mass emission rates for each of the contaminants tested at Sampling Location S9 are shown in Tables 14 
and 17. 

New York State employs ambient air guidelines for air emissions based on annual, potential annual, and 
short-term air quality impacts. The annual impact is based on the annual mass emission rate for a 
compound. In this case, 12 hours was used to determine the annual emission rate for each of the runs. 

The potential annual impact is calculated using the hourly mass emission rate for a compound and the 
maximum hours of operation in 1 year or 8,760 hours. The short-term impact is based on the impact that 
the mass emission rate of a compound has on the environment in 1 hour. These impacts are calculated 
using the NYSDEC air guide (NYSDEC 1995). 

All compounds were below the NYSDEC annual guideline concentration (AGC) for Runs 1 and 2; 
however, several compounds apparently failed to meet the potential annual guideline concentration 
(PGC). Because the results of arsenic analysis were below the detection limit of the laboratory analysis, 
the actual detection limit was used to determine a conservative mass emission rate. Using this detection 
limit, arsenic failed to meet the criteria for PGC for Runs 1 and 2. Hexavalent chromium and total 
tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans failed to meet the PGC during Run 1. The PGC assumes that the 
vitrification unit emits the same hourly mass emission rate as was tested for 8,760 hours per year. Permit 
conditions restricting the hours per year of operation would be considered in a commercial setting. Using 
the arsenic detection limit, short-term guideline concentration (SGC) results show that arsenic also failed 


71 


to meet the SGC criteria for Runs 1 and 2. The conservative mass emission rate based upon the 
laboratory detection limit, coupled with the low SGC for arsenic, would explain this failure to meet the 
SGC. 

4.4.6 Other Analyses 

This section discusses the results of additional analyses that were performed on the untreated soil, the 
vitrified product, or the ferrofumace-bottoms product. 

4.4.6.1 Chloride Analysis 

Prior to the demonstration there was concern that chloride present in the untreated soil might, along with 
the organic compounds present in the soil, lead to the formation of dioxins and furans. To assess whether 
chloride was present in the untreated soil from Site 130 and Liberty State Park, soil samples from both of 
these sites were collected and analyzed for chloride. The results are presented in Table 21. The chloride 
concentrations found in the untreated soil from both sites did not correlate with the dioxins and furans 
measured the offgas system during the demonstration. 


Table 21. Chloride in Dried, Blended Soil Mixture 


Site 

Chloride (mg/kg) 

Analytical 

Results 

Mean / SD 

Site 130 

35 



67 

65/29 


93 


Liberty State 

34 


Park 

42 

54/27 


85 



Note: 

SD Standard Deviation 


72 









4.4.6.2 Metallurgy of Ferrofurnace Bottoms 


Ferrofumace bottoms, a metallic product rich in iron, was formed during the vitrification of the Liberty 
State Park soil. Samples of this material were sent to a laboratory for analyses. The results of the 
analyses are presented in Table 22. 


4.4.6.3 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure 

After completion of the demonstration an EPA reviewer requested that SW-846 Method 1312, the 
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) be performed on the vitrified product as that would be 
one result that regulators would want to have available. The test was performed and the results are 
presented in Table 23. No metals were found at concentrations that would cause regulatory concern. 

Table 22. Metal Composition of Ferrofurnace Bottoms from Liberty State Park Soil 1 



Sample #1 (%) 

Sample #2 (%) 

Sample #3 (%) 

Hexavalent 

chromium 

ND 

ND 

ND 

Chromium 

3.03 

3.78 

3.95 

Arsenic 

0.03 

0.04 

NA 

Iron 

53.8 

56.3 

63.4 

Molybdenum 2 

30.1 

27.1 

18.6 

Nickel 

0.29 

0.31 

0.33 

Silicon 

0.03 

0.07 

0.07 


Notes: 


All samples were digested in nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid and analyzed 
by flame atomic absorption. 

Molybdenum was a component of the electrodes used during the 
demonstration. 

ND Not detected 

NA Not analyzed 


73 













4.4.7 


Cost 


Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to the soils treated during the SITE 
demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential 
credits for the vitrified product. The three scenarios evaluated included (1) use of the vitrified product as 
aggregate, (2) backfilling of the aggregate on site, and (3) landfilling of the aggregate. Costs for these 
three scenarios were $83, $98, and $213 per ton, respectively. Because of the uncertainty of their 
formation, potential credits for ferrofumace bottoms were not considered in this economic analysis. 


Table 23. Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Results 


SPLP Metal 

Site 130 

(mg/L) 

Liberty State 

Park 

(mg/L) 

Antimony 

<0.050 

<0.050 

Arsenic 

<0.050 

<0.050 

Barium 

0.075 

0.11 

Beryllium 

<0.0010 

<0.0010 

Cadmium 

<0.0046 

<0.0046 

Chromium 

<0.0056 

0.016J 

Lead 

<0.034 

<0.034 

Nickel 

<0.025 

<0.025 

Selenium 

<0.078 

<0.078 

Silver 

<0.0032 

<0.0032 

Vanadium 

<0.0076 

<0.0076 


Note: 


J = Estimated value, below practical quantitation limit. 


74 

















4.4.8 


Summary of Demonstration Results 


The following are the observational findings of the Cold Top SITE demonstration at the Geotech facility: 

• The Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from two New Jersey sites, 
producing a product that met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard. Vitrification of soil from 
one of the two sites produced, in addition to the vitrified product, a potentially recyclable 
metallic product meeting the RCRA TCLP chromium standard. Dust collected in the 
baghouse of the APCS failed to met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard. 

• With the exception of the vitrification-baghouse-dust and ferrofumace-bottoms samples, the 
chromium content of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the 
untreated soil. The concentration of chromium in the vitrification-baghouse-dust and 
ferrofumace-bottoms sample were about two and five times, respectively, the concentrations 
found in the untreated soil. 

The hexavalent chromium concentrations in the vitrified-product and ferrofumace-bottoms 
samples were either not detected or present at a concentration of 500 times less than that 
found in the untreated soil. The hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one half to 
approximately the same in the vitrification baghouse dust as in the untreated soil. 

• Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to the soils treated during the 
SITE demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal 
costs and potential credits for the vitrified product. 

• Comparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP interim standards 
revealed that antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, vanadium, and hexavalent chromium 
met the non-residential soil standards while chromium did not. 

• Although the Cold Top technology has nothing to do with incineration, stack emissions from 
the demonstration were compared to Subpart O incinerator regulations, and the results were 
mixed. 

Data collected during the SITE demonstration were entered into complex modeling 
calculations for the NYSDEC air emission regulations. The modeling required that site- and 
waste-specific analyses be performed to assess the environmental impact of Cold Top stack 
emissions. Modeling results were found to be dependent on the soil, APCS configuration, 
and detection limits of the various analytes. 

• The chloride concentrations found in the untreated soil from both sites did not correlate with 
the dioxins and furans measured the offgas system during the demonstration. The dioxin and 
furan results were generally below the laboratory reporting limits. 

• Analyses of the ferrofurnace bottoms produced from the Liberty State Park soil indicated that 
the samples contained 53 to 64 percent iron, 3 to 4 percent chromium, and less than 

0.4 percent nickel, as well as molybdenum from the furnace electrodes. 


75 


• One sample of vitrified material from each of the soils was extracted and analyzed by the 

SPLP procedure for 11 metals. Low amounts of barium were found in both samples and a 
very low amount of chromium (0.0056 mg/L) was found in the sample from Liberty State 
Park. 

4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 

QC checks and procedures were an integral part of the Geotech SITE demonstration to ensure that QA 
objectives were met. These checks and procedures focused on (1) the collection of representative samples 
that were free of external contamination and (2) the analysis of comparable data. Two kinds of QC checks 
and procedures were conducted during the demonstration: (1) checks controlling field activities, such as 
sample collection and shipping, and (2) checks controlling laboratory activities, such as extraction and 
analysis. A detailed discussion of the QA/QC program is provided in the Geotech Technology Evaluation 
Report (TER) (EPA 1999). 

Due to an unexpected system shutdown during Run 1, a change to the vitrification furnace APCS during 
Run 2, and an unexplainable discrepancy in the mass of untreated soil for Run 1, all data and conclusions 
from this demonstration are considered to be observational and do not meet the stringent levels of statistical 
significance established for this project. 

4.5.1 Conformance With Quality Assurance Objectives 

The overall quality assurance goal for the Cold Top SITE Demonstration, was to produce 
well-documented data of known quality, as indicated by the data’s precision, accuracy, representativeness, 
comparability, and completeness, and the target reporting limits for the analytical methods. Specific 
Quality Assurance Objectives (QAOs) were established as benchmarks by which each criterion would be 
evaluated. These QAOs were presented in the demonstration QAPP and are shown in Table 24. (EPA 
1996). This section discusses the quality assurance data for the demonstration. 

4.5.1.1 Method Blanks 

Method blanks evaluate the representativeness of the data by checking for laboratory-induced 
contamination. Method blanks were analyzed with each sample batch and consisted of an aliquot of reagent 


76 


water carried through all preparation and analysis steps. Ideally, method blanks should not contain analytes 
at concentrations above the method detection limit (MDL). Should the blank show contamination, 
corrective actions vary, depending on the specific contaminant, its concentration, and whether the 
contaminant is also detected in the sample. Chromium was detected in one of three method blank samples 
at an estimated concentration of 3.9 mg/kg. Samples associated with this blank were the S4 (soil dryer 
baghouse dust) and S7 (dried, blended soil mixture) samples collected on January 29, 1997. 

TCLP chromium was detected in one method blank sample at an estimated concentration of 0.0062 mg/L. 
The samples associated with this blank were the SI 1 (vitrified product) samples collected on February 10 
and 11, 1997. Chromium was also detected in one TCLP blank at an estimated concentration of 
0.0056 mg/L, the same concentration as the MDL; the S7 (dried, blended soil mixture) samples collected on 
January 27, 1997, were associated with this blank. Barium was detected in only one SPLP blank at a 
concentration of 0.085 mg/L; the SI 1 (vitrified product) samples were associated with this blank. 

4.5.1.2 Analytical Quality Control Categories 

This section discusses the types of analytical QC applied to the data collected during the demonstration. 
These QC checks determined the data’s accuracy, precision, representativeness, completeness, and 
comparability. 

4.5.1.2.1 Accuracy 

Accuracy is a measure of the analytical system's achievement of the true value. Accuracy is determined by 
calculating percent recovery from samples spiked with a known concentration of a selected compound or 
analyte 

All but three recoveries were within QC limits. One sample of dried, blended soil mixture and one sample 
of vitrification furnace baghouse dust had MS and MSD percent recoveries of 0 for TCLP chromium due 
to dilution of the extract. Another sample of dried, blended soil mixture had an MS percent recovery of 
157.5 for TCLP chromium. Analytical results for these samples are considered to be acceptable without 
qualification. 


77 


Table 24 

QA Objectives for Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness 


Compound 

Matrix 

Analytical Method 

Accuracy 
(% Rec) 

Precision 
(% RPD) 

TRL 

Completeness 

(%) 

Chromium 

Solid 

SW-846 3052 and 
6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

14 mg/kg 

90 

Cr +6 

Solid 

SW-846 3060A and 

7196 A 

70 to 130 

<30 

0.41 mg/kg 

90 

Chromium 

(TCLP) 1 

Solid 

SW-846 1311, 3010A, 
and 6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

0.56 mg/L 

90 

Chromium 

Stack 

emissions 

EPA Method 
Cr +6 /3052/6010A 

75 to 125 

<20 

1.2 ug/ dscm 

90 

Cr +6 

Stack 

emissions 

EPA Method Cr +6 

70 to 130 

<25 

16 ng/dscm 

90 

Chromium 

Vitrified 

product 

SW-846 3052 and 

6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

14 mg/kg 

90 

Cr +6 

Vitrified 

product 

NJIT/XPS 2 

- 

- 

- 

90 

Chromium 

(TCLP)' 

Vitrified 

product 

SW-846 1311, 3010A, 
and 6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

0.56 mg/L 

90 

Antimony 

Vitrified 

product 

SW-846 3051 and 
6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

60 mg/kg 

90 

Beryllium 

Vitrified 

product 

SW-846 3051 and 

6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

20 mg/kg 

90 

Cadmium 

Vitrified 

product 

SW-846 3051 and 

6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

60 mg/kg 

90 

Nickel 

Vitrified 

product 

SW-846 3051 and 
6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

50 mg/kg 

90 

Vanadium 

Vitrified 

product 

SW-846 3051 and 

6010A 

75 to 125 

<25 

30 mg/kg 

90 


Notes: 


A critical parameter 

The New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) performed X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy 
(XPS).This analysis was not performed as part of the SITE demonstration. 

Cr +6 Hexavalent chromium 

RPD Relative percent difference 

TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 

TRL Target reporting limit 

% REC Percent recovery 

pg; mg microgram; milligram 

ng; kg nanogram; kilogram 

L; dscm liter; dry standard cubic feet 


78 

























4.5.1.2.2 


Precision 


Precision is a measure of the variability associated with the measurement system. Analytical precision is 
estimated by analyzing samples in pairs, either the unspiked sample and its duplicate or the MS and MSD 
samples. The degree of variability between a sample and its duplicate is expressed in terms of the relative 
percent difference (RPD). 

One RPD exceeded the 25 percent QC criteria. A sample of dried, blended soil mixture that had MS and 
MSD percent recoveries of 97.5 and 157.5 had an RPD of 47. 

4.5.1.2.3 Completeness 

Completeness is an assessment of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared 
to the amount of data expected to achieve a particular statistical level of confidence. The percent 
completeness is calculated by the number of valid points divided by the planned number of measurements 
and multiplying the result by 100. Completeness was greater than the quality assurance objective of 90 
percent for each set of parameters. 

4.5.1.2.4 Representativeness 

For this demonstration, representativeness involved sample size, sample volume, sampling times, and 
sampling locations. A sufficient number of samples were collected to analyze all of the parameters 
required; therefore, the QC objective for representativeness was met. 

4.5.1.2.5 Comparability 

All parameters were measured using standard methods. Therefore, demonstration data are considered to be 
comparable to any other performance data generated using standard methods. 


79 


4.5.2 Stack Emissions Sampling 


Two separate mobilizations were required to complete the two-run project program. Run 1 was not 
completed because of a process upset; that is, only one of two traverses was completed at each of the 
sampling locations. Run 2 was completed in full; however, the flow condition was different from Run 1 
resulting from a damper on the vitrification hood being open. 

4.5.2.1 EPA Method Cr 6 

Fluegas concentrations of hexavalent chromium were determined using EPA Method Cr +6 (40CFR Part 266, 
Appendix IX) at both Sampling Locations S13 and S9A. 

During Run 1, a 0.1-normal potassium hydroxide absorbing solution was used in accordance with the 
method. The concentration of sulfur dioxide during Run 1 was detected at levels approaching 50 ppm, 
much higher than expected. The pH check that is conducted during the train recovery yielded a pH of 9.5 
for both the inlet and outlet trains; therefore, the increase in the acidity of the fluegas did not decrease the 
effectiveness of the absorbing solution. An increase in the normality of the absorbing solution was decided 
upon for Run 2, because the concentration of sulfur dioxide was expected to be similar to that of Run 1. 
Using the average value for the concentration of sulfur dioxide during the stack sampling of Run 1, it was 
calculated that a 5-normal potassium hydroxide absorbing solution should be used. The sulfur dioxide did 
not reach the expected concentration during Run 2 because a damper in the vitrification hood exhaust was 
left open. The increase in normality of the potassium hydroxide solution causes interference in the 
laboratory analysis and because of this, reagent blank values were greater in Run 2 than Run 1, resulting in 
negative Cr+6 results. 

High particulate loading was present at Sampling Location SI3, but because the sampling tram does not 
utilize a filter, this did not pose a problem during sampling. 

Treatment of Blank Results 


Reagent blanks for EPA Method Cr +6 were collected during both test runs. A field blank for Sampling 
Locations S13 and S9A was also collected after Run 2. The following approach for the treatment of results 


80 



was used: 


• Reagent blank results that were above detection limits were subtracted from the run data, resulting 
in negative values. 

• Reagent blank results that were below detection limits were not used in the correction of the test 
sample results (for example, results below detection limits were treated as zeros). 

• No corrections were made in the test data for field blanks. 


4.5.2.2 EPA Method 23 


Fluegas concentrations of PCDDs/PCDFs were determined using EPA Method 23: Determination of 
Polychlormated-Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlormated-Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources (40CFR 
Part 60; Appendix A 1994). During Run 1, sampling for PCDD/PCDF was conducted at both Sampling 
Locations S13 and S9A. During Run 2, sampling for PCDD/PCDF was only conducted at Sampling 
Location SI3. 

Treatment of Results Below Detection Limits 

Target analytes were present at concentrations both above and below detection limits of Method 23. The 
following procedures were used to sum the two sample train fractions: 

• Both Values Detected. When positive values are detected for both sample fractions, the results for 
the two fractions are summed. The data are not qualified. 

• Both Values Below Detection Limit. When both reported values are below the detection limit, the 
data are flagged as not detected (ND), and the sum of the detection limits for the analytes are used in 
all of the calculations. 

• Some Values are Detected, and Some are Nondetected. As an approximation of the true value, one- 
half of the detection limits for the nondetected values, and the actual values for the detected values 
are used to calculate reported values. In reporting the sums of mixed values, the data are not 
qualified. 

Treatment of Blank Results 

Reagent blanks for EPA Method 23 were collected during both test runs and archived. A field blank for 
Sampling Location S13 was collected after Run 2. No correction to the test data was made for field blanks 


81 




or reagent blanks, because these results were below detection limits. 


4.5.2.3 EPA Method 29 


Fluegas concentrations of trace metals, hydrogen chloride gas, and particulate were determined using 
modified EPA Method 29: Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources (40 CFR Part 60, 
Appendix A 1996) at Sampling Location S9. During Run 1, sampling was conducted at Sampling Location 
S9B, and during Run 2, sampling was conducted at Sampling Location S9A. 

Treatment of Results Below Detection Limits 


Target analytes were present at concentrations both above and below detection limits of Method 29. The 
following procedures were used to sum the two sample train fractions: 


• All Values Detected. When positive values are detected for all fractions, the results for the fractions 
are summed. The data are not qualified. 

• All Values Below Detection Limit. When all reported data are below the detection limit, the data 
are flagged as ND, and sum of the detection limit for the analytes are used in all of the calculations. 

• Some Values are Detected, and Some are Nondetected. As an approximation of the true value, one- 
half of the detection limits for the nondetected values, and the actual values for the detected values 
are used to calculate reported values. In reporting the sums of mixed values, the data are not 
qualified. 

Treatment of Blank Results 


Reagent blanks for EPA Method 29 were collected during both test runs and archived. A field blank for 
Sampling Location S13 was collected after Run 2. The following approach for treatment of results was 
used: 

• The reagent blank results that were above detection limits were subtracted from the run data as per 
Method 29. The reagent blank results that were below detection were not used in the correction of 
the test sample results (i.e. results below detection limits were treated as zeros). 

• No correction was made in the run data for field blank results. 


82 




SECTION 5 

TECHNOLOGY STATUS 


The center of the Geotech technology is a water-cooled, double-wall, steel furnace that uses submerged 
electrode resistance melting. The furnace and associated equipment are capable of a range of melting 
temperatures up to 5,200 °F. The technology can be used to vitrify chromium-contaminated soil, 
municipal solid waste incinerator ash, fly ash, asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, ceramic 
minerals, and a range of other materials, including soils contaminated with heavy metals such as lead and 
cadmium. The vitrified product can be formed into granular non-porous solids of 3/8 inch or smaller or 
glassy blocks of up to 300 pounds. These products have potential economic value as shore erosion block, 
roadbed fill, aggregate for concrete or asphalt, or other uses where a high-density, solid material is 
needed. The product can also be spun into mineral or ceramic fiber, which may have economic value as 
insulation, wall board, industrial furnace linings, and ceramic fiber. 

Geotech currently operates a 50-ton-per day Cold Top vitrification pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New 
York. This facility was used for over 34 research and customer demonstrations, including the SITE 
demonstration. Geotech says this plant is capable of melting any mineral or combination of minerals that 
is present in a relatively dry condition. The molten stream can be collected in an inert, amorphous, 
glass-like condition in either large blocks or grit-sized particles or, if the mineralogy is correct, the 
molten stream can be introduced to a spinner, and fiber can be produced. Materials fused in this plant 
range from high purity zirconia and magnesite, requiring fusion temperatures in excess of 5,000 °F, to 
contaminated soils that melt at 1,800 °F. 

Geotech has built or assisted with the construction or upgrading of five operating vitrification plants. 

The first of these is the Sklo Union plant located in Teplice, Czechoslovakia. This plant was built in 
1981 to produce alumina silica ceramic fibers from the vitrified material. The plant has also melted and 
poured basic basalt and coal fly ash to produce mineral-fiber products. The plant mainly produces 
ceramic fiber, as the commercial value of the ceramic fibers is nearly 20 times that of mineral fiber. The 
production capacity of this plant ranges from 800 pounds per hour for ceramic fiber to 4,000 pounds per 
hour for 

fly-ash residue. Power consumption ranges from 0.78 kilowatt hour per pound (KWH/lb) for ceramic 
fiber to 0.23 KWH/lb for fly-ash residue. 


83 


Geotech has assisted with the design and construction of another ceramic fiber facility at Fibertek S.P.A. 
in Atella, Italy, in 1985. The general configuration of this plant was very similar to the Czechoslovakian 
plant. This plant was also designed with the capability of converting municipal solid waste and fly ash to 
mineral-wool-grade fiber but, due to the economics, only ceramic fiber has been produced. 

In 1983 Geotech supplied molten stream control, high-speed spinning, and fiber-collection equipment to 
the LaFarge Refractaires facility in Lorete, France. The equipment was used to upgrade the 
manufacturing efficiency and product quality of the facility. 

In 1985 Geotech contracted with Nichias Corporation of Nagano, Japan, to upgrade their melting and 
fiber-forming process. Geotech furnished a melting furnace, electrical controls, high-speed spinning 
equipment, and fiber-collection equipment for a plant that produces ceramic fibers. 

In 1992 Geotech installed mineral-fusion and fiber-formation equipment in a proprietary plant in Nagoya, 
Japan. The plant is designed to vitrify a wide variety of solid mineral waste materials, including clam¬ 
shell residue, sludge-ash residue, and coal-ash residue. 

Geotech plans to build a commercial Cold Top vitrification facility near the northern New Jersey 
chromium sites. The facility will use electricity to vitrify solid waste including chromium-contaminated 
wastes. The planned capacity of this facility is 300 tons per day. The facility will be able to receive, 
prepare, and vitrify waste material, and dispose of the vitrified product from the chromium sites as well 
as from municipal solid waste incinerators and other producers of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. 


84 


REFERENCES 


EPA, 1999. Geotech Development Corporation Cold top Ex-Situ Vitrification Technology: Technology 
Evaluation Report. 

Evans, G. 1990. Estimating Innovative Technology Costs for the SITE Program. Journal of Air and 
Waste Management Association, 40:7, pgs 1047 - 1051. 

Meegoda, J., W. Kamolpornwijit, D. Vaccari, A. Ezeldin, L. Walden, W. Ward, R. Mueller, and S. 
Santora. 1996. Aggregates for Construction from Vitrified Chromium Contaminated Soils. 
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology, Voll. 
pgs 405-415. 

Meegoda, J., B. Librizzi, G. McKenna, W. Kamolpornwijit, D. Cohen, D. Vaccari, S. Ezeldin, L. 

Walden, B. Noval, R. Mueller, and S. Santora. 1995. Remediation and Reuse of Chromium 
Contaminated Soils Through Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification. Proceedings of the 27th 
Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, pgs 733-742. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1995. Guidelines for the 
Control of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants. 

R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1996. Means Site Cost Data, 15th Annual Edition. Construction Consultants 
and Publishers, Kingston, MA. 

R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1997. R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data: 55 th Edition. 
Construction Consultants and Publishers, Kingston, MA. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Geotech 
Development Corporation Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System Technology Demonstration in 
Niagara falls, New York; New Jersey Chromium Sites. 


85 











































































































































































United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 
Center for 

Environmental Research Information 
Cincinnati, OH 45268 


Please make all necessary changes on the below label, 
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper 
left-hand corner. 

If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HEReD ; 
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the 
upper left-hand corner. 


PRESORTED STANDARC 
POSTAGE & FEES PAID 
EPA 

PERMIT No. G-35 


Official Business 
Penalty for Private Use 
$300 

EPA/540/R-97/506 
library of congress 

































*7 A 


*- ^ A, V \' 


'bJETZfjP 


V< 


'♦w * 



• Vv^ : 

.w 

*o *\+' 





* r< 3f> ^ *- 

<1 r v * 

* TP«f» “ 

° * 

* A*V 'VV 


t * O. 


k V 0 ^H0 4 /V ^ * * L, l/V° * ^/U-Ao^ * * ,% V^« * ^Vto"C 4 * * »' 

&£^“ n ’^^^ m ^vH* ,m *;^°^^ vo “ o, *>^ *Kp^°; 

0h\\f A\//j 





« * 


_ t & % * 
n*, »'.A 


* * * 

■'gt'S'' 4 * v' ’k '<?. kJ * yv '^ v \,* <y ^ * '**%$$&' «T 

v<^'° • ’ * y*-'J^J%° * * * J?> 





: ^ 


^ v \ l 

■v-ts 



3 * * • * ;> A 

- * ^ *' sa *'’ - A *•' 



r ov 


cJ?\}WP/ <f\ WJ \ 

' '^%° ‘ V°.oX' ‘ ’ '^l^S 




• o.V^4°,. • ,\ 

> V /«'. • 



AO. 

^ »* 

I,»'’A. °o/*» 



r ov 


W; </\ % W/ \W*" ^V%W/ s oTO/ ^VvW 

£ ^gi^K * ‘X“S'X * a 


«<■>- 

.V^i 


V»” V ‘ ~ u <£> ’ * 7 -^ r|1 * <* * * 

A y«*V/)i , i'\ A’+Jta*.* 

v-<y :ffli! * 



; "V 



> 4> *°** 0 ° V* X 
O v v 

. A y. v v c 


* O 


3 <JV 


vVA* 




JY 


V o **.^Wr* ❖ *v ** '•W* .r r* c tyji/^> > o *o * .A V* r. * 

;,. o, Vom • .. ^,'*»».’/ t ,. .. ,*<*3*/,. O> o 4.‘o„ * 




- 


>^“-“^<7 * w r , y^a,_.«ssx r ' ~ '5S^ nr:j; ^2' 2 u ^ ™ r* ^ 2 J j' c 3 w 

o c \ W^vW * ***%■ °^?W' 

^ * * '^. ,u, /v° • ‘'^“"''.V' * * ‘^»* 11 ‘/v 0 • ^A o< t o » 0<< \ 0 '' * ♦ >- , *t' f v o * ‘'X 


ov 


: ^ 


r ov 


O no 


, . . , V'°“°’>^ * 0^4> % «M^'> , . . , V* 

o 

J» 

'V 



O * V 


r- V“ A. 

r e5? J\> J 

4 " (io #, 

SI .0 X)- ♦ 



^ ; 
^ V \ ° 



: -V' '■ J bv t> ' 

/'X * * ^° c 

.*£> S jMi**''* Va. a V .v f5 » % 




r V V ^ 
r t53^o J 

a* \,V 


iECKMAN 


BINDERY, INC. 

Bound-To-Please 8 


02-T02212 

N. MANCHESTER, INDIANA 46962 



ov *M&; Ad 4 


^5* 



°o A P c,^ ^ * 

* 'Cpv ® r 

o vVA. o WAsn^$ r c?3^r. J 

^o a l"* \0 O 4 ^ J, _ <4 * 

ca rA co nc ^4, << 

4. c ' 0 -‘ , ^b^^ °° c 5 ^ 

o . ,} bA 





m, ^ ^ ♦ jA W/k o ^ » jA^Al r ^a ^ , 


*0^v 































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































